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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress drugs found in two packages that were seized by the USPS. Based on the aggregate of factors, and contrary to defendant's contentions, the court concluded that the postal employee had reasonable suspicion to detain the packages. The court also concluded that the 17-day delay between the detention of the package and its search did not constitute an unreasonable, warrantless seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the eight-day delay between the establishment of probable cause and obtaining the search warrants was reasonable. Finally, defendant's argument that the search warrants were invalid is meritless. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Atlantic, concluding that the action is precluded on res judicata grounds. The court clarified some doctrinal confusion in its law about Louisiana principles of res judicata that one of its sister circuits has observed. The court concluded that this action arises out of the same nucleus of facts as plaintiff's initial suit, the issue of Atlantic's alleged bad faith misrepresentation of underinsured motorist coverage could have been raised in that initial suit, and plaintiff did not specifically reserve the right to bring this second suit as part of his settlement agreement with Atlantic. While plaintiff is correct that Louisiana's bad faith statutes impose duties on Atlantic that are separate and distinct from its duties under the insurance contract, this action remains barred by res judicata. Finally, this case does not present an exceptional circumstance exception to res judicata. View "Dotson v. Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Texas: 1. If Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code Section 22.16(f) exempts a package store from Section 22.16(a), and if the package store sells any, most, or all of its shares to a corporation that does not itself qualify under Section 22.16(f), will the package store's package store permits remain valid? 2. If yes to (1), can the package store validly accumulate additional package store permits by reason of Section 22.16(f)? View "Gabriel Investment Group, Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Danziger's complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Danziger, a Texas resident, filed three intentional tort claims and a claim for breach of contract against Morgan Verkamp, a Ohio-based law firm, and two of its members, residents of Ohio. The court concluded that, because none of Morgan Verkamp's allegedly tortious conduct either occurred in Texas or was otherwise meaningfully connected to the state, the district court correctly dismissed Danziger's intentional tort claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. Furthermore, the district court correctly dismissed Danziger's breach of contract claims for lack of personal jurisdiction where Danziger was the only connection between the alleged contract and Texas. View "Danziger & De Llano, LLP v. Morgan Verkamp, LLC" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court in light of Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021), the Fifth Circuit concluded that the robbery offense of which appellee was convicted under the Texas simple robbery statute, Tex. Penal Code Ann. 29.02, was robbery-by-threat, a valid Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) predicate for an enhanced sentence that was not affected by Borden. Therefore, the court reinstated its judgment reversing the district court's imposition of a lesser sentence, and remanded to the district court for resentencing under the ACCA. View "United States v. Garrett" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 65 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. The court stated that, although the district court committed plain error by relying on a bare arrest record at sentencing, the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights because he cannot show that he would have received a lesser sentence absent the error. In this case, given the district court's emphasis on defendant's immigration history, and in particular the decision to impose the same 65 month sentence he had received previously, the court cannot say that there is a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence absent consideration of the bare arrest record. View "United States v. Zarco-Beiza" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit concluded that the USCIS did not act arbitrarily when it determined that plaintiff was not eligible for an extraordinary ability visa and affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the government. The court first determined that it had jurisdiction despite plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In regard to plaintiff's challenges to the framework the USCIS used to evaluate his application, the court concluded that the regulation does not say that meeting the regulatory criteria presumptively qualifies an applicant for a visa. Furthermore, the Policy Memo is valid without notice and comment where the Policy Memo does not create legal rights or obligations.In regard to plaintiff's substantive challenge, the court concluded that the USCIS did not act arbitrarily at both steps of its analysis because the agency considered plaintiff's evidence and explained why it does not meet the regulatory standard. In this case, the USCIS considered plaintiff's evidence and credited his accomplishments but determined that he did not meet his burden of proving that his designs were of "major significance" to his field. Finally, the agency properly considered plaintiff's accomplishments but found them insufficient. The court stated that its determination reflects the reasoned consideration the Administrative Procedure Act requires. View "Amin v. Mayorkas" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in an action concerning the allision between three vessels passing each other in the Hahnville Bar, a bend between mile markers 124.5 and 126 in the Mississippi River where a number of moorings are located. The court concluded that the district court did not err in allowing the parties' respective liabilities, in limiting the parties' liability, or in dismissing the personal injury claim. In this case, the district court did not clearly err in allocating liability as to the Elizabeth, the Loretta, or the Aris T. The court agreed with the district court's ruling that the Limitation of Liability Act does not allow the Elizabeth Interests or the Loretta Interest to limit liability in this case. Furthermore, the Aris T's negligence was attributable solely to the compulsory pilot, Pilot Leone, and therefore, the Aris T is only liable in rem. Finally, in regard to the personal injury claim, the court concluded that the proximate cause element was not satisfied where claimant's unforeseeable panic caused the accident. View "SCF Waxler Marine, LLC v. Genesis Marine, LLC" on Justia Law

Pennywell delivered his petition for direct review of his state conviction—which resulted in multiple life sentences—to prison guards for mailing. Through some unknown fault in the mailing process, the Louisiana Supreme Court never received the petition. Once Pennywell discovered the petition had never arrived at the Louisiana Supreme Court, he promptly refiled it. As a result of the untimeliness caused by the mailing failure of his first petition, however, the Louisiana Supreme Court dismissed his renewed petition for direct review as untimely. That decision was the basis for all subsequent denials of state and federal post-conviction relief.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Pennywell’s petition, holding that Pennywell was entitled to equitable tolling. The failure to timely deliver the petition to the Louisiana Supreme Court was through no fault of Pennywell; by the failure of the mail system, Pennywell was “prevented in some extraordinary way from asserting his rights.” Given the undisputed facts, Pennywell demonstrated due diligence and an extraordinary circumstance that justify equitable tolling. View "Pennywell v. Hooper" on Justia Law

In this dispute over terms of an online auction, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion by improperly admitting evidence and taking judicial notice of the terms. The court explained that Exhibit 41, an internet printout, was not properly authenticated, and the district court abused its discretion by determining that the exhibit was fit under Federal Rule of Evidence 803. Furthermore, the district court erred in taking judicial notice of the terms because a private internet archive falls short of being a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned as required by Rule 201. Because the district court's errors were not harmless, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Weinhoffer v. Davie Shoring, Inc." on Justia Law