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

The defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The presentence investigation report determined that the defendant’s offense level was increased due to two prior Louisiana felony convictions: aggravated battery and distribution of cocaine. The report also applied enhancements for a stolen firearm and use of the firearm in connection with another felony. The defendant objected to these enhancements and the classification of his prior aggravated battery conviction as a “crime of violence.” The district court overruled the objections, adopted the report’s findings, and sentenced the defendant to 120 months in prison, the statutory maximum.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the defendant argued that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, relying on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, and that the district court erred in treating his prior aggravated battery conviction as a crime of violence for sentencing purposes. The defendant had not raised these arguments in the district court, so the Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error.The Fifth Circuit held that, under existing precedent, a conviction under § 922(g)(1) does not constitute plain error, and there has been no development in the law to suggest otherwise. Regarding the sentencing enhancement, the court found that the defendant failed to show a “realistic probability” that Louisiana courts would uphold an aggravated battery conviction based on reckless or negligent conduct, as required to demonstrate clear or obvious error under the categorical approach. The court concluded that neither the conviction nor the sentence was reversible under plain error review and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "USA v. Sereal" on Justia Law

Fieldwood Energy LLC, an oil and gas company, contracted with Island Operating Company, Inc. (IOC) through a Master Services Contract (MSC) to provide workers for oil and gas production services on offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. The MSC defined the work as “Lease Operators,” and a subsequent work order requested “A Operators” to perform tasks such as compliance testing and equipment checks on the platforms. The contract required Fieldwood to provide marine transportation for workers and equipment, which it did by hiring Offshore Oil Services, Inc. (OOSI) to transport IOC employees, including Tyrone Felix, to the platforms. Felix was injured while disembarking from OOSI’s vessel, the M/V Anna M, and subsequently made a claim against OOSI.OOSI filed a complaint for exoneration or limitation of liability in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. OOSI also sought indemnification from IOC under the MSC’s indemnity provision. IOC moved for summary judgment, arguing that Louisiana law, specifically the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (LOAIA), rendered the indemnity provision unenforceable. The district court agreed, finding that the MSC was not a maritime contract because vessels were not expected to play a substantial role in the contract’s performance, and thus Louisiana law applied. The court granted summary judgment for IOC on indemnity and insurance coverage, and later on defense costs after OOSI settled with Felix.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the MSC was not a maritime contract because neither its terms nor the parties’ expectations contemplated that vessels would play a substantial role in the contract’s completion. As a result, Louisiana law applied, and the LOAIA barred enforcement of the indemnity provision. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of IOC. View "Offshore Oil Services, Inc. v. Island Operating Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former machine operator with a high school education, stopped working after a workplace injury and subsequently experienced a range of medical issues, including spinal stenosis, degenerative joint disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, arthritis, depression, and anxiety. In November 2018, she applied for disability insurance benefits, claiming her disability began in March of that year. Her application was denied at multiple stages within the Social Security Administration (SSA), including after a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The SSA Appeals Council denied her request for review, prompting her to seek judicial review.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi reversed and remanded the ALJ’s decision, instructing the ALJ to specifically evaluate certain medical opinions, including that of Dr. William Booker, in accordance with relevant regulations. On remand, the ALJ held another hearing, considered extensive medical evidence and testimony, and again found that while the plaintiff had several severe impairments and could not perform her past work, she retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work with certain restrictions. The ALJ concluded that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform, and thus she was not disabled. The Appeals Council adopted this as the final decision of the Commissioner. The district court, with the consent of both parties, affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, and the plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and whether proper legal standards were applied. The court held that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and that any alleged errors did not prejudice the plaintiff’s substantial rights. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Madkins v. Bisignano" on Justia Law

Texas enacted Senate Bill 1, which included several provisions regulating how individuals may assist voters, particularly those who are blind, disabled, or illiterate. The challenged provisions required assistors to disclose personal information, amended the oath assistors must take, and prohibited compensated assistance or paid ballot harvesting. Various organizations with members who require or provide voting assistance argued that these provisions were preempted by Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows eligible voters to receive assistance from a person of their choice, with certain exceptions.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found that at least one plaintiff organization had standing to challenge each provision. The court held that Section 208 preempted all the challenged provisions, reasoning that the federal law did not permit states to impose additional limitations or exceptions beyond those stated in Section 208. As a result, the district court permanently enjoined state officials and certain district attorneys from enforcing the relevant sections of Senate Bill 1.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit concluded that none of the plaintiff organizations had standing to challenge the disclosure and oath provisions, as their fears of prosecution were speculative and did not constitute an actual or imminent injury. However, the court agreed that two organizations had standing to challenge the compensation provisions, as there was a credible threat of prosecution for their ongoing activities.Addressing the merits, the Fifth Circuit held that Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act does not preempt Texas’s compensation-related restrictions. The court found no clear and manifest congressional intent to preempt such state regulations and rejected the district court’s broader reading of Section 208. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, vacated the permanent injunction, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott" on Justia Law

Five individuals were charged in federal court for their roles in a large-scale drug trafficking operation. The scheme involved purchasing marijuana from states where it was legal, such as California and Oregon, and distributing it to twenty-one other states. The operation used drivers to transport marijuana and related products, with cash proceeds handled outside of financial institutions to avoid detection. Law enforcement investigations included surveillance, traffic stops, and searches of residences, warehouses, and storage units, resulting in the seizure of large quantities of marijuana, THC products, cash, and firearms. The lead investigator analyzed cell phone data to estimate the scope of the conspiracy, concluding it involved over 23,000 kilograms of marijuana.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas indicted the five appellants and ten co-defendants on multiple counts, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and other individualized charges. Eight co-defendants pleaded guilty, while the five appellants went to trial. After an eight-day trial, the jury convicted all five of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kg or more of marijuana and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Roberts was also convicted of continuing criminal enterprise and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Sentences ranged from 48 to 240 months’ imprisonment, with some counts dismissed or sentences ordered to run concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the convictions and sentences. The court affirmed the convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and promotional money laundering, but vacated the sentences for certain defendants due to errors in the admission of a summary chart used to estimate drug quantities and clerical errors in the judgments and presentence reports. The court remanded for resentencing under the default penalty provision and correction of clerical errors, while affirming other aspects of the convictions and venue determinations. View "United States v. McGuire" on Justia Law

Ricky Wilson was implicated in an incident at a Waffle House, where he allegedly brandished a green pistol with a drum magazine during a dispute, causing fear in another customer. The victim identified Wilson, his vehicle, and the weapon. A detective, already investigating Wilson for another matter, learned that Wilson’s girlfriend rented an apartment at 212 Central Avenue, where Wilson’s car was later observed. Two weeks after the Waffle House incident, the detective sought and obtained both an arrest warrant for Wilson and a search warrant for the apartment, based on an affidavit that recounted the Waffle House events and stated that items related to the assault were “believed to be located” at the apartment. The search yielded ammunition, marijuana, and a firearm, leading to federal charges against Wilson.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Wilson’s motion to suppress the evidence found at the apartment. The court found that the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to establish a nexus between the Waffle House incident and the apartment, rendering the warrant unsupported by probable cause. The court also determined that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply because the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that reliance on it was unreasonable. The government appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s suppression of the evidence. The Fifth Circuit held that the affidavit was a “bare-bones” statement, offering no facts connecting the alleged crime to the apartment, and thus failed to establish probable cause. The court further held that the good-faith exception did not apply because the affidavit was so deficient that no reasonable officer could believe it established probable cause. The suppression of the evidence was therefore proper. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

A Syrian-born naturalized U.S. citizen, together with a business partner, sought to establish a halal beef slaughterhouse in Colombia and solicited investment for the venture. An FBI confidential informant, suspicious of their activities, connected them with an undercover agent posing as a representative of a wealthy investor. The supposed investor agreed to provide $9 million on the condition that at least five percent be sent to Jabhat al-Nusra, a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. The defendants agreed to this arrangement, took steps to conceal the transfers, and demonstrated knowledge that the funds would support violent acts by the group. The FBI terminated the operation, and the defendant was arrested and charged with conspiracy to murder and maim persons in a foreign country, and conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and to a designated foreign terrorist organization.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas presided over the trial, where a jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. The court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 160 months’ imprisonment. The defendant appealed, raising several issues, including the exclusion of his son’s testimony, limitations on cross-examination, sufficiency of the evidence, denial of a combatant-immunity instruction, the jury instruction regarding the terrorist organization’s designation, and the denial of sanctions for an alleged violation of a preservation order by a government witness.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the convictions. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the son’s testimony or in its evidentiary rulings, found no reversible error in the jury instructions, and determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The appellate court also concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in denying sanctions related to the preservation order. View "United States v. Wadi" on Justia Law

A pretrial detainee in the St. Tammany Parish Jail, who has had a prosthetic eye for decades, reported his chronic condition to jail medical staff upon intake. In June 2022, a jail doctor prescribed antibiotics and twice-weekly wound care for an infection in the detainee’s eye socket. Although the detainee was initially scheduled for wound care, he was not taken to his appointments, and his infection worsened over several weeks. The detainee filed multiple grievances, alleging that a deputy failed to escort him to medical care and that a refusal-of-treatment form was falsely completed without his knowledge or signature. After further investigation, jail officials determined that the medical records inaccurately reflected wound care visits, which were actually medication distributions, and ultimately found the detainee’s grievance substantiated.The detainee filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, naming jail officials and medical staff as defendants. The district court, through a magistrate judge, granted a motion to dismiss for some defendants and summary judgment for others, entering final judgment against the detainee and dismissing his claims with prejudice. The court denied the detainee’s motions to compel discovery and to amend his complaint, and did not address some discovery requests before entering judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the magistrate judge committed plain error by treating a report and recommendation as a final judgment before it was formally adopted, thereby denying the detainee a full and fair opportunity for discovery. The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the doctor-defendants, affirmed the dismissal of claims against most jail officials, but found that dismissal should have been without prejudice to allow for amendment. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "James v. Smith" on Justia Law

After being released from a psychiatric hold, Reginald Humbles traveled from Lafayette to New Orleans, Louisiana, with little money and a firearm. When he ran out of gas, he encountered a waste removal truck and, after allegedly receiving a message from God, took the truck at gunpoint from its driver. Humbles then led police on a lengthy chase, which ended after officers deployed spike strips. Upon arrest, a loaded revolver was found in his possession. Humbles, a U.S. Army veteran with a history of mental illness, was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana accepted Humbles’s guilty plea. During sentencing, the court adopted a presentence report that cross-referenced the robbery Sentencing Guideline, applied an enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight, and included a criminal history point for an uncounseled misdemeanor DUI conviction. The court denied Humbles’s motions for a downward variance and departure based on mental health and military service, and sentenced him to 92 months’ imprisonment. Humbles appealed, challenging the application of the robbery Guideline, the enhancements, the inclusion of his DUI conviction, and the denial of his motions for a lower sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found no reversible error. The court held that the district court did not err in cross-referencing the robbery Guideline, as Humbles failed to meet his burden to prove legal insanity at the time of the offense. The court also upheld the enhancements for reckless endangerment and the inclusion of the uncounseled DUI conviction, finding that Humbles knowingly waived his right to counsel. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied the request to reassign the case to a different judge. View "United States v. Humbles" on Justia Law

An employee at a meatpacking plant in Texas died after contracting COVID-19, allegedly from a coworker who continued working after testing positive. The decedent’s family sued the plant manager, the safety manager, and the coworker in Texas state court, claiming negligence and gross negligence due to unsafe working conditions and inadequate precautions against COVID-19. The complaint alleged that the employer, Tyson Foods, failed to protect employees, and that the managers were responsible for workplace safety. The coworker was accused of coming to work and failing to take precautions after testing positive.The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, arguing that the Texas-based managers were improperly joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The district court agreed, dismissed the claims against the managers with prejudice, and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Tyson Foods was later added as a defendant. The district court then dismissed the claims against Tyson on the grounds that they were preempted by the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), and dismissed the claims against the coworker for failure to state a claim, finding no individual duty to prevent the spread of disease under Texas law. The court denied leave to amend the complaint as futile and entered final judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to remand and the dismissal of the coworker, holding that the managers were improperly joined and that Texas law does not impose an individual duty on coworkers to prevent the spread of disease. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the claims against Tyson, holding that the PPIA does not preempt state law negligence claims based on workplace safety unrelated to food adulteration. The court vacated the denial of leave to amend and remanded for further proceedings. View "Williams v. Wingrove" on Justia Law