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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 240-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The court concluded that each of defendant's arguments that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines fails because any supposed error was harmless. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did in fact consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and defendant's contentions to the contrary lack merit. View "United States v. Rebulloza" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, the Bank, alleging that the Bank violated 42 U.S.C. 1981 by taking retaliatory employment actions against him because he opposed racial discrimination occurring within his department.The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant leave to amend his complaint where he failed to offer any grounds as to why his leave should be granted or how deficiencies in his complaint could be corrected. However, the court concluded that the district court erred in finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim under section 1981 when it concluded that he did not engage in a protected activity. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the court concluded that plaintiff has successfully pleaded facts that could support a reasonable belief. In this case, plaintiff alleged that he overheard a supervisor state that "he intended to terminate four (4) African American employees." The court explained that a supervisor's considering of the race of an employee when deciding to terminate that employee is an unlawful employment practice. Furthermore, after plaintiff gave a statement to a human resources investigator, he alleges that the company began to retaliate against him by denying his loans, giving him multiple warnings, sending him to unnecessary training, and ultimately terminating him. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Scott v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n" on Justia Law

Family Rehab brought a procedural due process claim arguing that it is entitled to third step review before recoupment of Medicare overpayments. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Family Rehab, and entered a permanent injunction barring HHS from recouping the disputed funds until the completion of third step review under 42 C.F.R. 405.1036(c)–(d).However, in reaching its decision, the district court did not have the benefit of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Sahara Health Care Inc. v. Azar, 975 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2020), in which the court rejected a similar due process claim under nearly identical facts. In this case, Family Rehab's claims all involve documentation issues that do not require cross-examination and credibility determinations. The court explained that Family Rehab's claims could have been resolved in the first two steps of administrative review by producing the relevant documents. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment. View "Family Rehabilitation, Inc. v. Becerra" on Justia Law

Gezu worked for Charter, 2017-2019. In October 2017, Charter sent an email to all active, non-union employees announcing a new employment-based legal dispute resolution program. The email instructed employees about their right to opt out. The arbitration agreement, which was available in full on Charter’s intranet, required arbitration of all disputes, claims, and controversies that could be asserted in court or before an administrative agency.During his employment, Gezu allegedly suffered discrimination based on his race and national origin and Charter did not take any action to address the discrimination despite being made aware of it. Charter terminated Gezu in May 2019, based on what Gezu alleges were pretextual reasons. Gezu, acting pro se, asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The Fifth Circuit affirmed an order granting Charter’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss. There was a valid modification to Gezu’s employment contract, consisting of notice and acceptance. View "Gezu v. Charter Communications" on Justia Law

Kapordelis notified the prison medical unit that he broke his CPAP mask. After Kapordelis twice refused to leave the medical unit, an incident report was filed, including charges for destroying, altering, or damaging government property in excess of $100, 28 C.F.R. 541.3(b). Kapordelis contended that he did not deliberately break the mask. The prison's physician and a CPAP representative indicated that the mask was unlikely to break accidentally. The Discipline Hearing Officer sustained the charge and sanctioned Kapordelis with a loss of 27 days of good conduct time. Kapordelis administratively appealed, claiming that the broken part was the plastic “flexible spacebar,” which is “designed to bend when the mask is removed” and that replacing the spacebar “would likely cost less than $20.” Kapordelis’s administrative appeal was denied.Kapordelis filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2241, asserting that his due process rights were violated because no evidence was presented that he intentionally destroyed his CPAP mask. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his petition. Kapordelis’s admission that the mask broke in his possession, coupled with the statements from the CPAP representative and the doctor, were sufficient to support the disciplinary conviction under the “some evidence” standard and there was “some evidence” to support the finding that Kapordelis caused damage in excess of $100. View "Kapordelis v. Myers" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against various LPD officers, Webb County prosecutors, Webb County, and the City of Laredo, alleging a pattern of harassment and retaliation by various local officials, culminating in her arrest, in violation of her First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff is a journalist who regularly reports on local crime, missing persons, community events, and other news on her Facebook page. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from her arrest under Texas Penal Code 39.06(c), which prohibits obtaining information from a public servant that is nonpublic for personal benefit. The district court dismissed all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).The Fifth Circuit joined its sister circuits in holding that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not permit government officials to invoke patently unconstitutional statutes like section 39.06(c) to avoid liability for their actions. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's First Amendment infringement claim against various officials on official qualified immunity grounds, concluding that it should be patently obvious to any reasonable police officer that locking up a journalist for asking questions of public officials violates the First Amendment. However, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a First Amendment retaliation claim. Just as the First Amendment violation alleged in the complaint was obvious for purposes of qualified immunity, the court concluded that so too was the Fourth Amendment violation alleged here. Therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the Fourth Amendment claim. The court also concluded that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's selective enforcement claim for failure to identify similarly situated individuals; given the court's conclusion that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims, the court also remanded her conspiracy claim; and the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the municipal liability claim against the City. View "Villarreal v. City of Laredo" on Justia Law

In 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed Davis’s convictions for health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud because the convictions were based on insufficient evidence. Davis had been incarcerated for approximately one year before the reversal. Davis sought a certificate of innocence arguing that she fulfilled the requirements in 28 U.S.C. 2513 (Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Statute) and, in the alternative, that the statute is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Nelson v. Colorado.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Davis’s motion. Under the Statute, Davis had to prove that she “did not commit any of the acts charged” and that she “did not by misconduct or neglect cause or bring about [her] own prosecution.” The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Davis did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she “did not commit any of the acts charged.” The 2018 decision “went no further than concluding that the government did not implicate Davis in the scheme with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Nelson is inapplicable because it did not involve a request for compensation. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Contreras-Rojas appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry, arguing that the enhancement of his sentence under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1) is unconstitutional because the fact of a prior conviction was neither found by a jury nor alleged in the indictment.The Fifth Circuit granted summary affirmance. The Supreme Court’s 1998 “Almendarez-Torres” decision held that a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement. The Fifth Circuit reiterated that “[i]n the future, barring new developments in Supreme Court jurisprudence, arguments seeking reconsideration of Almendarez-Torres will be viewed with skepticism.” View "United States v. Contreras-Rojas" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's issuance of a declaratory judgment that an automobile driver's death was not covered by the terms of the defendant insurance company's policy. In this case, as the driver was driving his personal vehicle to a logging site owned by V & B, he collided with a sawmill's metal gate that had swung out across the road. The driver sustained multiple traumatic injuries and died at the scene. The court agreed with the district court's well-reasoned and thorough order on summary judgment concluding that the policy unambiguously excludes coverage for any injury arising from an automobile accident, regardless of the car's ownership. View "Colony Insurance Co. v. Wright" on Justia Law

Officers executing a search warrant at Wood’s residence found Sincleair, Wood, Ilczyszyn, and Markezinis, and Blackman sitting on a couch smoking methamphetamine. The officers discovered less than two ounces of methamphetamine in Wood’s residence; they found a firearm on a table near the couch but did not determine who owned it.Sincleair pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, without a plea agreement. The PSR held Sincleair accountable for conspiring with Kuhn and Wilbur to possess with intent to distribute 26,166.3 kilograms of methamphetamine and GHB. He was not held accountable for the methamphetamine seized from Wood’s residence because it could have been “double counting" what he received from Kuhn. The PSR recommended a two-level firearm possession enhancement, U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1). Sincleair objected, arguing that his presence at Wood’s house was not related to the drug conspiracy to which he pleaded guilty--he was at Wood’s home to engage in drug use, not drug trafficking. The firearm was confirmed to be owned by and registered to Wood. A PSR addendum explained that the enhancement was appropriate because Sincleair was Ilczyszyn’s source of supply and was present for the drug transaction between Ilczyszyn and Wood.The district court adopted the PSR and sentenced Sincleair to 210 months' imprisonment. The Fifth Circuit vacated. If, on remand, the district court applies the firearm enhancement, “it should make the appropriate findings and state plainly the basis for its decision.” View "United States v. Sincleair" on Justia Law