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

Taegan Ray Contreras was charged with possessing a firearm as a felon, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statute violated the Second Amendment both facially and as applied to him. The district court denied the motion, and Contreras was convicted and sentenced. He appealed, raising the same constitutional challenges.The District Court for the Western District of Texas initially sentenced Contreras to 24 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release for being a user in possession of a firearm. While on supervised release, detectives found Contreras in possession of a firearm and marijuana. He was arrested and indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Contreras moved to dismiss the indictment, but the district court denied the motion, finding § 922(g)(1) constitutional. Contreras entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. He was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and forfeiture of the firearm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reiterated that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional and concluded that it is constitutional as applied to Contreras. The court found that the Second Amendment extends to convicted felons but upheld the statute, noting historical traditions of disarming felons and those under the influence of substances. The court held that § 922(g)(1) is consistent with historical regulations and principles, affirming Contreras' conviction. View "United States v. Contreras" on Justia Law

In January 2021, San Antonio police officers responded to two calls reporting a gunshot at an apartment complex. Officer Bonenberger arrived at the scene, spoke with a resident who heard the gunshot, and inspected a bullet hole in her apartment wall. Officers then encountered Jonte Turner, who lived in the adjacent apartment, and conducted a protective sweep of his apartment, finding firearms and magazines in plain view. Turner was arrested, and a search warrant was obtained, leading to the seizure of firearms, magazines, and marijuana.Turner moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the initial sweep and subsequent search violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motions, finding exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and protective sweep. Turner then pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that exigent circumstances and probable cause justified the warrantless entry and protective sweep of Turner’s apartment. The court found that the officers reasonably believed a firearm had been discharged from Turner’s apartment, posing an immediate safety risk. The protective sweep was limited in scope and duration, lasting only 99 seconds and confined to areas where a person could be hiding.The court also upheld the validity of the search warrant, finding that the affidavit supporting the warrant was not based on deliberately or recklessly false information. The good-faith exception applied, and the warrant was supported by probable cause. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Turner’s motions to suppress. View "United States v. Turner" on Justia Law

Stokley Austin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride and cocaine base, which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years at the time. He was sentenced accordingly. Later, the First Step Act reduced the mandatory minimum for his offense to 15 years but explicitly made this change non-retroactive.Austin filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) in January 2023, arguing that the non-retroactive change in the law was an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce his sentence. He reiterated this argument in a subsequent motion in May 2023. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied his motions in December 2023, concluding that Austin did not present an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction and did not consider the § 3553(a) factors. Austin then appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a non-retroactive change in the law is not an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(1). The court cited its precedent in United States v. Escajeda, which defined "extraordinary" and "compelling" reasons as those that are beyond common order and unique to the prisoner’s life. The court noted that a non-retroactive change in the law affects all prisoners sentenced under the old law equally and does not constitute an extraordinary or compelling reason. The court also addressed the Sentencing Guidelines, stating that the Sentencing Commission cannot override Congress's explicit decision to make the change non-retroactive. The court affirmed the district court’s order denying Austin’s motions. View "United States v. Austin" on Justia Law

Paul Curry, Jr. pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The presentence report (PSR) classified him as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), due to four prior Texas burglary convictions. Consequently, the district court sentenced him to 262 months of imprisonment, within the guidelines range of 210 to 262 months. Curry did not object to the PSR at the district court level.Curry appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing for the first time that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and that the district court erred in sentencing him as an armed career criminal. He contended that § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and violates the Second Amendment. Additionally, he argued that the district court should have submitted the question of whether his prior crimes occurred on separate occasions to a jury, and that it erred by relying solely on the PSR for the ACCA enhancement.The Fifth Circuit reviewed Curry's constitutional challenges for plain error, as they were not raised in the district court. The court found that Curry's arguments regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) were foreclosed by precedent. The court also held that Curry's facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment failed, as the statute was not unconstitutional in all its applications.Regarding the ACCA enhancement, the Fifth Circuit determined that the district court clearly erred by not submitting the separate-occasions inquiry to a jury, as required by the Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v. United States. However, the court concluded that Curry failed to demonstrate that this error affected his substantial rights, given the substantial gaps in time and different victims involved in his prior convictions. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Curry" on Justia Law

Eddie Lamont Bell pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after being found in possession of a firearm. Bell was discovered by police asleep in his vehicle with a semiautomatic pistol on the center console, a large-capacity magazine, and cocaine. He admitted to being a convicted felon. Before sentencing, Bell was involved in an altercation with a fellow inmate, Hipolito Brito, which was captured on video. The video showed Brito initiating physical violence after Bell asked him to stop snoring. Bell was not disciplined or criminally charged for the incident.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Bell a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, citing the altercation as evidence of continued criminal conduct. The court also applied an elevated offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 due to the firearm's capability to accept a large-capacity magazine. Bell was sentenced to 115 months' imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Bell appealed, arguing that the district court erred in both denying the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and applying the elevated offense level. He also challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), but conceded that this argument was foreclosed in the circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with Bell that his pre-sentencing conduct did not outweigh the significant evidence of his acceptance of responsibility, as Bell did not initiate the altercation and appeared to act in self-defense. Consequently, the court vacated Bell's sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court did not address Bell's challenge to the elevated offense level under § 2K2.1, noting that the standards in United States v. Luna-Gonzalez would apply on remand. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

David Bailey and his friends went to downtown San Antonio to film the police. They encountered Officers Oscar Ramos and Christopher Dech, who were guarding an ambulance. An altercation ensued, and Bailey was arrested for interfering with the duties of a public servant. Bailey filed constitutional claims against the City of San Antonio and Officers Ramos and Dech, but this appeal concerns only the claims against Ramos: unlawful arrest, unlawful seizure, First Amendment retaliation, and excessive force. Ramos moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, which the district court denied, leading to this appeal.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed all claims against the City and Bailey's right-to-record claim. It granted qualified immunity for the malicious prosecution claim but denied it for the unlawful arrest, unlawful seizure, First Amendment retaliation, and excessive force claims, citing genuine disputes of material fact.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment, holding that Ramos was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that Ramos could have reasonably believed he had probable cause to arrest Bailey for interference with public duties, even if mistaken. The court also determined that the force used by Ramos was not clearly established as unlawful at the time of the incident. Consequently, the court remanded the case with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of Ramos and to dismiss Bailey's claims. View "Bailey v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Karen Ashley, the former Chief Nursing Officer of Clay County Memorial Hospital (CCMH), raised concerns about patient safety issues, including missing fentanyl and procedural errors in blood transfusions. She reported these issues internally and publicly at a CCMH Board meeting. Ashley also advocated for CCMH to terminate its contract with Concord Medical Group PLLC and partner with ACPHealth. Following this advocacy, Ashley alleges that the County, CCMH, and the Foundation retaliated against her by terminating her employment, violating her First Amendment rights.Ashley filed suit against the County and Concord Medical Group, alleging retaliation under the Texas Occupations Code and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The County moved to dismiss, asserting it was not Ashley’s employer and had taken no adverse actions against her. Ashley amended her complaint to add CCMH as a defendant and narrowed her claims against the County. The County maintained it was not Ashley’s employer and moved to dismiss on governmental immunity grounds. CCMH invoked an arbitration clause in Ashley’s employment agreement and moved to compel arbitration. The district court compelled the County to arbitration alongside CCMH and denied the County’s motion to dismiss as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred by not addressing the County’s governmental immunity defense before compelling arbitration. The appellate court reversed the district court’s order compelling arbitration and remanded the case with instructions for the district court to resolve the issue of governmental immunity as it pertains to the County’s motion to dismiss before ruling on the motion to compel arbitration. View "Ashley v. Clay County" on Justia Law

Dr. Zahra Shahrashoob, an Iranian woman, was hired by Texas A&M University (A&M) in 2018 for a non-tenure-track position in the Department of Chemical Engineering. Initially employed as a lecturer, she was later reclassified as an instructional assistant professor. Despite her satisfactory performance, she felt discriminated against due to her workspace, salary, and teaching load, leading her to file a discrimination charge in June 2020. In August 2020, A&M offered her a shortened four-and-a-half-month contract, which ended in January 2021. She filed a second discrimination charge, alleging that Dr. Mohammad Alam, an Indian man, was hired to replace her.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted A&M’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing Dr. Shahrashoob’s claims. The court found that she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination as she did not show that she was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees. Additionally, the court concluded that she could not prove that A&M’s reasons for her nonrenewal were pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Dr. Shahrashoob forfeited her arguments regarding Dr. Alam by not raising them sufficiently in the lower court. Even if she had not forfeited these arguments, she failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination as she did not provide sufficient evidence that Dr. Alam was similarly situated or that he replaced her. Regarding her retaliation claim, the court found that she could not show that A&M’s reasons for her nonrenewal were pretextual, as she did not provide significant evidence beyond temporal proximity. Thus, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of A&M. View "Shahrashoob v. Texas A&M University" on Justia Law

Christian N. Davis, a former Army corporal, was convicted by a general court-martial in 1993 of multiple offenses, including attempted premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit murder, premeditated murder, arson, and adultery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. After his conviction, Davis sought clemency and parole but was denied. He was later transferred to a federal civilian prison, where his parole was again denied.Davis filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, citing his age, health conditions, low risk of recidivism, and rehabilitative efforts. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction, as § 3582 requires such motions to be filed in the sentencing court, and Davis's sentence was imposed by a military court. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's findings, dismissed Davis's motion for compassionate release for lack of jurisdiction, and denied his habeas claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3582 does not apply to sentences imposed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and that such motions must be filed in the sentencing court. Since Davis's sentence was imposed by a general court-martial, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion for compassionate release. The court also rejected Davis's arguments based on 10 U.S.C. § 858(a) and the case Bates v. Wilkinson, concluding that neither authorized civilian courts to modify military sentences. View "Davis v. USA" on Justia Law

Two lessors, Elizabeth Franklin and Cynthia Peironnet, owned mineral interests in a tract of land in Louisiana. In 2007, Regions Bank, managing their interests, mistakenly extended a lease for the entire tract instead of a portion. Advances in drilling technology increased the tract's value, and the lessors sued Matador Resources, the lessee, to invalidate the extension. Meanwhile, they entered into a new lease with Petrohawk Energy Corporation, contingent on the invalidation of the Matador lease. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the Matador lease, preventing the lessors from benefiting from the more favorable Petrohawk lease.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held a bench trial in 2021, finding Regions liable for breach of contract. On remand, the court considered extrinsic evidence to determine the lease's royalty provision, concluding it should be based on gross proceeds. The court awarded damages accordingly, including prejudgment interest on past losses and discounted future losses to present value.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the lease conveyed a gross proceeds royalty and the admission of extrinsic evidence. However, it reversed the district court's award of royalty damages plus prejudgment interest. The appellate court instructed the district court to consider actual loss data for past years when recalculating damages and to award prejudgment interest from the date each item of past damages was incurred. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these instructions. View "Franklin v. Regions Bank" on Justia Law