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

Esteban Luna Caudillo pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography, violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(B) and (b)(1). As part of his plea agreement, he agreed to pay full restitution to the victims, with the court determining the amount. The government provided a factual basis for the plea, detailing that Luna Caudillo received child pornography via an online cloud storage account linked to his email. A search of his cell phone revealed numerous files of child pornography. The presentence investigation report (PSR) calculated a guidelines range of 210 to 262 months of imprisonment and recommended restitution awards to eleven victims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas considered Luna Caudillo’s objections to the PSR, including challenges to the restitution calculations. The court adjusted the guidelines range to 121 to 151 months based on an amended offense level and criminal history category. Luna Caudillo reiterated his objections to the restitution recommendations, arguing that the estimates for future medical costs were not verifiable and that the Paroline factors required a determination of proximate cause for each victim’s losses. The district court sentenced him to 135 months of imprisonment, ten years of supervised release, and ordered restitution totaling $73,000 to the eleven victims, including a $3,000 mandatory minimum to one victim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Luna Caudillo argued that the restitution awards violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The court found this argument foreclosed by circuit precedent, which holds that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to restitution awards. He also contended that the mandatory minimum restitution award violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Alleyne v. United States. The court noted that this argument was not foreclosed by precedent but found it moot due to Luna Caudillo’s explicit waiver of any Sixth Amendment challenge in his plea agreement. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Caudillo" on Justia Law

Christy Bunker sued Dow Chemical Company in Texas state court, alleging age discrimination and retaliation. Dow removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Bunker failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit. The district court granted Dow’s motion, finding that Bunker did not properly request that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) file her charge with the appropriate state agency, the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed Bunker’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court found that Bunker had filed a charge with the EEOC but did not indicate that the charge should also be filed with the TWC. Consequently, the court held that Bunker failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as required under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that Bunker’s failure to indicate on her EEOC charge that it should be filed with the TWC meant she did not meet the TCHRA’s filing requirements. The court noted that both Texas state and federal courts have consistently held that a charge filed with the EEOC must at least indicate that it is to be filed with the TWC to satisfy the TCHRA’s requirements. Therefore, Bunker’s claims were rightfully dismissed with prejudice for failing to exhaust her administrative remedies. View "Bunker v. Dow Chemical" on Justia Law

In 2021, Shannon Carson was injured in an automobile accident in Louisiana while driving an 18-wheeler truck owned by his employer. The accident was caused by another driver, Jamarcea Washington, who was insured by GEICO and died in the collision. Carson's employer's truck was insured by American Millenium Insurance Company, which provided $75,000 in underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. Carson also had a personal automobile insurance policy with USAA, which provided $50,000 in UIM coverage. Carson settled with GEICO and American Millenium for their policy limits and then sought additional UIM benefits from his USAA policy.The case was initially filed in Louisiana state court and then removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana based on diversity jurisdiction. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of USAA, concluding that Carson, as a Class II insured under South Carolina law, was prohibited from stacking his personal UIM insurance on top of the American Millenium UIM coverage. Carson filed a Rule 59(e) motion, arguing that he was entitled to "port" his personal UIM coverage under South Carolina law. The district court denied the motion, maintaining that the case involved stacking, not portability, and that Carson had already received the statutory limit for UIM coverage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that South Carolina law does not prevent Carson from recovering UIM benefits under his personal automobile insurance policy with USAA. The court distinguished between stacking and portability, noting that while stacking is prohibited for Class II insureds, portability allows an insured to recover under their personal UIM policy when their vehicle is not involved in the accident. The court vacated the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Carson v. USAA Casualty Insurance" on Justia Law

In May 2020, following the death of George Floyd, several individuals participated in or were near protests in downtown Houston. They allege that they were falsely arrested by City of Houston police officers who used "kettle maneuvers" to confine and arrest protesters. The plaintiffs claim that then-Chief of Police Art Acevedo implemented a policy of "kettling" and arresting protesters. They sued the City and Acevedo under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, based on the assertion that there was no probable cause for their arrests under section 42.03 of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibits obstructing passageways.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs under section 42.03 and dismissed the claims against both the City and Acevedo. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that two previous panels had addressed similar issues with conflicting outcomes. In Utley v. City of Houston, the panel found probable cause for arrest and affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s § 1983 lawsuit. Conversely, in Herrera v. Acevedo, the panel found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged false arrest and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The current panel agreed with the Utley decision, holding that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs for obstructing a passageway under section 42.03. The court found that the size and location of the protests provided sufficient probable cause for the arrests, thus negating any First, Fourth, or Fourteenth Amendment violations. Consequently, the claims against the City and Acevedo were dismissed due to the lack of an underlying constitutional violation. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Wade v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Anthony Barron, a civilian contractor, drowned while driving through a low water crossing at Camp Bullis, a U.S. military facility near San Antonio, Texas. The crossing was not closed or guarded despite regulations requiring such measures during heavy rain. Barron’s parents sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging general negligence, premises liability, and negligent undertaking.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed the claims, citing sovereign immunity and the discretionary function exception. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that the regulation mandating the gate be locked or guarded was non-discretionary. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the government, ruling that Texas law barred the general negligence and premises liability claims and that the negligent undertaking claim was inadequately pleaded.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the general negligence and premises liability claims, agreeing that Texas law precludes recovery under these theories. However, the appellate court disagreed with the district court’s finding that the negligent undertaking claim was inadequately pleaded. The Fifth Circuit found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged the elements of negligent undertaking.Given the uncertainty in Texas law regarding whether a negligent undertaking claim can proceed when a premises liability claim is barred by the natural accumulation doctrine, the Fifth Circuit certified this question to the Supreme Court of Texas. The appellate court retained jurisdiction pending the state court’s response. View "Barron v. United States" on Justia Law

Arthur Lee Burton was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in June 1998 for kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and strangling a woman in Houston, Texas. His conviction was affirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, but his sentence was vacated and remanded for a new trial on punishment. Upon retrial, he was again sentenced to death, and this sentence was affirmed. Burton pursued state and federal habeas relief, which were all denied.Burton recently filed three challenges to his scheduled execution in Texas state court, including motions to withdraw his execution order and a habeas petition alleging constitutional violations. These challenges were rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Subsequently, Burton sought authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to file a successive federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and moved to stay his execution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied both motions. The court held that Burton's petition was untimely, as it was filed well beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed by § 2244(d). Burton's reliance on Atkins v. Virginia and Moore v. Texas was insufficient to excuse the delay, as both cases were decided long before his current motion. The court also rejected Burton's arguments for equitable tolling and actual innocence, finding that he had not pursued his rights diligently and that his claims were not supported by extraordinary circumstances. Consequently, the court concluded that Burton failed to meet the requirements of § 2244 and denied his motion to stay execution. View "In re Burton" on Justia Law

Hermilo Cantu Silva sustained a gunshot wound when a Border Patrol Agent attempted to apprehend him for suspected illegal entry into the United States. Silva sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), asserting several intentional tort claims and negligence. The case proceeded to a bench trial solely on the negligence claim. At the close of evidence, the trial court raised the potential applicability of the discretionary function exception, which the parties briefed. The trial court determined that the discretionary function exception deprived the court of jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a bench trial and, at the close of evidence, raised the issue of the discretionary function exception. The Government filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, and Silva responded. The trial court concluded that the discretionary function exception applied, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction over Silva’s FTCA claim. Silva appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court agreed with the lower court that the discretionary function exception applied. The court found that Agent Mendoza’s decision to draw and not re-holster his firearm was discretionary and grounded in policy considerations, meeting both prongs of the Gaubert test. Consequently, the discretionary function exception precluded subject matter jurisdiction over Silva’s FTCA claim. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case. View "Silva v. United States" on Justia Law

On December 22, 2022, Jesus Soto Parra, an American citizen, attempted to enter the United States at the Presidio, Texas port of entry. After being turned back by Mexican officials due to a vehicle registration issue, Soto Parra returned to the U.S. and initially denied having any weapons, ammunition, or cash over $10,000 to a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer. Upon further inspection, he admitted to having a weapon in his vehicle. A search revealed a firearm, ammunition, and body armor. Soto Parra was charged with exporting a pistol without authorization and was found guilty by a jury.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas sentenced Soto Parra, applying a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice based on his false statements to the CBP officer and during his post-arrest interview. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended a base offense level of 14, which was increased to 16 due to the obstruction enhancement, resulting in a sentencing range of 24 to 30 months. Soto Parra objected to the enhancement, but the district court overruled his objections and sentenced him to 30 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in applying the obstruction of justice enhancement. The appellate court determined that Soto Parra's false statements did not significantly impede the investigation or prosecution, as required for the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The court held that the error was plain and affected Soto Parra's substantial rights, as it resulted in a higher sentencing range. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated Soto Parra's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing without the obstruction of justice enhancement. View "USA v. Parra" on Justia Law

The case involves healthcare providers and air ambulance services challenging regulations established by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury. These regulations were designed to guide independent arbitrators in resolving insurance reimbursement disputes under the No Surprises Act, which aims to protect patients from unexpected medical bills by limiting their out-of-pocket costs for emergency and certain non-emergency services provided by out-of-network providers.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas reviewed the case and vacated the regulations, finding that they improperly favored the qualifying payment amount (QPA) over other statutory factors that arbitrators are required to consider. The court held that the regulations conflicted with the No Surprises Act and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by imposing additional requirements not found in the statute. The court also found that the plaintiffs had standing to sue based on procedural and financial injuries.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the regulations exceeded the Departments' authority by imposing a sequence in which arbitrators must consider the QPA first, disregarding information deemed not credible or unrelated, and requiring arbitrators to explain why they deviated from the QPA. The court found that these provisions placed undue emphasis on the QPA, contrary to the statute's requirement that all factors be considered equally. The court also upheld the district court's universal vacatur of the challenged provisions, rejecting the Departments' arguments for more limited relief. View "Texas Medical Association v. Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of four counts of fraud for submitting two fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan applications during the COVID-19 pandemic. She misrepresented the number of employees and payroll expenses for her businesses, requesting nearly $4 million in total. One application was denied, and the funds from the other were frozen and seized before she could access them. Throughout the prosecution, the defendant had conflicts with multiple appointed attorneys, leading to several motions to substitute counsel, all of which were denied by the district court. The trial proceeded with the defendant absent on the first day after she refused to change out of her jail clothes and participate, but she was present for the remainder of the trial.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied the defendant's motions to substitute counsel, finding no substantial conflict or complete breakdown in communication that warranted new counsel. The court also determined that the defendant had voluntarily waived her right to be present at the trial by refusing to cooperate and change into street clothes. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, and the court sentenced her to 70 months of imprisonment and ordered her to pay over $2 million in restitution to the Small Business Administration (SBA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions to substitute counsel, as the defendant's intransigence caused the communication breakdown. The court also found that the district court properly concluded the defendant voluntarily waived her right to be present at trial. Additionally, the appellate court upheld the district court's sentencing enhancement based on intended loss and the restitution order, finding no clear error in these determinations. View "United States v. Kasali" on Justia Law