Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether defendant's lawyer's conflict of interest adversely affected his representation. In this case, unbeknownst to defendant, her pretrial attorney—who represented her until days before trial—also represented one of the Government's star witnesses. Defendant retained new counsel and was convicted.The court agreed with defendant that "Assistance of Counsel" necessarily means effective assistance, and effective assistance demands conflict-free representation. The court stated that this is certainly no less true during the pretrial phase, particularly today, when roughly 97.8 percent of federal criminal convictions are obtained not through a constitutionally prescribed jury trial but through plea bargaining. The court otherwise affirmed the district court's denial of a continuance and rejected defendant's additional grounds for reversal. View "United States v. Sheperd" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to forcibly and intentionally assaulting his then-girlfriend. The court concluded that the district court erred in assessing 3 criminal history points for a stale 2002 conviction, which affected defendant's substantial rights. In this case, had defendant's PSR been calculated correctly, his resulting criminal history category would have been IV and not the category V score he was originally assessed. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. The court affirmed the district court's application of the bodily injury enhancement under USSG 2A2.2(b)(3)(A) where, in light of the record, it was plausible for the district court to find that the victim sustained a bodily injury under section 2A2.2(b)(3)(A). View "United States v. Blanco" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the BIA dismissing appeal from an order of the IJ denying applications for asylum and withholding of removal and denying an alternative motion to remand for consideration of voluntary departure. Petitioner argues that she suffered persecution and that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on her anti-police corruption political opinion and her membership in various particular social groups.The Fifth Circuit concluded that petitioner failed to show that the harm she suffered in Guatemala rises to the level of persecution or that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. However, petitioner's notice to appear did not contain all of the relevant information and the Government indicates that the matter should be remanded, in part, to the BIA for consideration of her request for voluntary departure in light of Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021). Therefore, the court granted the petition as to the stop-time issue, and remanded to the BIA for consideration under Niz-Chavez and other relevant precedents. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Gregorio-Osorio v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging the denial of immigration relief to petitioner, concluding that petitioner's appeal amounts to a challenge alleging that the IJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and the court cannot say that the evidence in this case compels a contrary result. While petitioner's family will undoubtedly be distraught at his removal and their familial ties will be strained, the court concluded that the evidence in this case does not establish that this family would suffer hardship above and beyond that regularly faced by families who are separated. View "Morales v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Honduran immigrants, filed suit challenging USCIS's decision to administratively close appellants' cases based on lack of jurisdiction as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act. The Fifth Circuit held that appellants' claims are not indirect challenges to their deportation orders, and therefore reversed the district courts that dismissed their cases for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.However, the court concluded that USCIS correctly determined that appellants are not "arriving aliens" within the meaning of the relevant regulation. The court determined that USCIS erred by characterizing appellants' travel and reentry as advance parole because Congress has statutorily provided that Temporary Protected Status beneficiaries returning from authorized travel abroad must be admitted into the country in the same immigration status they held prior to departure. The court explained that appellants were not parolees waiting for their applications to be processed prior to departing the country, and thus their statuses could not be converted to those of paroled aliens upon their return. Rather, the court concluded that appellants were fully admitted into the country upon their return and thus were not arriving aliens when they submitted their applications for adjustment of status. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Government. View "Duarte v. Mayorkas" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging the BIA's decision affirming petitioner's removal. Petitioner claims that worsened conditions in her home country, El Salvador, entitle her to remain in the United States. After determining that it has jurisdiction over the petition for review, the court concluded that the BIA did not err in denying petitioner relief on the merits. In this case, the BIA did not need specifically to refute the two Salvadoran officials' belief that the violence at issue arose from a coordinated gang campaign. Nor did the BIA err in applying Singh v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2016). Based on petitioner's scattered anecdotal evidence, the court concluded that the BIA's conclusion that she did not meet the heavy burden of showing changed circumstances was neither irrational nor unsupported by the evidence. View "Martinez-Guevara v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a police accountability activist, was arrested on crowded Sixth Street in downtown Austin while "cop watching" (video-recording police activity). After plaintiff and police officers had repeated verbal confrontations about how close to them he was permitted to stand while recording, he was arrested for misdemeanor interference with performance of official duties. Four Austin police officers took plaintiff to the ground and handcuffed him, with plaintiff suffering minor bruises and lesions as a result.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment as to plaintiff's excessive force claim and affirmed the district court's decision in all other respects. The court held that none of the officers involved in plaintiff's arrest used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court also concluded that summary judgment for the officers on plaintiff's false arrest claim was proper; the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on his First Amendment claim; and his bystander and municipal liability claims fail for lack of an underlying constitutional violation. View "Buehler v. Dear" on Justia Law

This case presents a coda to its companion appeal, No. 20-50671. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's post-judgment order, as modified, charging defendant's membership interest in M. G. & Sons, a single-member LLC, and requiring both defendant and M. G. & Sons to obtain leave of court before transferring assets to third parties. The court stated that it is well established that courts have the power to enforce their judgments through injunctive relief. The court concluded that the district court properly exercised this power, in addition to charging defendant's interest in M. G. & Sons according to Texas law, by restricting Hughes from transferring assets to evade the district court's judgment. View "Thomas v. Hughes" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit slightly modified the district court's final judgment to prevent the possibility of double recovery and otherwise affirmed the district court's final judgment, attorney's fee award, and denial of post-judgment relief on various grounds. The court concluded that the district court did not err in limiting defendant's testimony as it did; the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant and Performance Probiotics misappropriated trade secrets; defendant breached her fiduciary duty to PPI; defendant fraudulently transferred assets in violation of the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act; and to support the jury's decision to pierce the corporate veils of PPI and Performance Probiotics.The court also concluded that the district court did not err by retaining jurisdiction over API or abuse its discretion either in denying defendant's motion for a new trial or in awarding attorney's fees and expenses. The court clarified that the district court's judgment could be read to allow for a duplicative recovery and thus modified the judgment affirmatively to state that plaintiffs may not recover the amount of the Comal County judgment twice. View "Thomas v. Hughes" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied defendants' motion for a partial stay of the district court's preliminary injunction enjoining the Department of Defense, United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and United States Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro from enforcing certain COVID-19 vaccination requirements against 35 Navy special warfare personnel and prohibiting any adverse actions based on their religious accommodation requests. Specifically, defendants seek a partial stay pending appeal insofar as the injunction precludes them from considering plaintiffs' vaccination statuses "in making deployment, assignment and other operational decisions."The court weighed the Mindes abstention factors and determined that this dispute is justiciable. However, the court concluded that defendants have not carried their burden to warrant the issuance of the stay. The court agreed with the district court that defendants have not shown a compelling interest to deny religious accommodations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to each of the 35 plaintiffs at issue. Rather, the "marginal interest" in vaccinating each plaintiff appears to be negligible and thus defendants lack a sufficiently compelling interest to vaccinate plaintiffs. The court also concluded that the preliminary injunction does not irreparably damage the Navy and the public; partially staying the preliminary injunction pending appeal would substantially harm plaintiffs; and issuance of the requested stay would disserve the public interest. View "U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden" on Justia Law