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

The Fifth Circuit reversed defendant's below-Guidelines sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a terrorism charge. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively unreasonable where the district court did not account for a sentencing factor -- the seriousness of defendant's offense -- that should have received significant weight. In this case, the judge characterized and discounted defendant's conduct effectively so as to contradict the facts defendant admitted in his plea agreement. Furthermore, the judge failed to acknowledge that defendant had facilitated and fully supported the purposes and atrocities of ISIS.Accordingly, the court remanded for a second resentencing. Because the sentencing judge seems immovable from his views of the sentence he imposed, and because the judge displayed bias against the government and its lawyers, the court sua sponte reassigned this case to a different judge. View "United States v. Khan" on Justia Law

Michael and Cynthia Herman were convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Michael was convicted of five counts and Cynthia of two counts of willfully filing false tax returns. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their understated gross receipts and claiming of personal expenses as business expenses on their tax returns.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court did not reversibly err in excluding some of the proffered defense exhibits; the district court did not err in excluding testimony from defendants' forensic accountant regarding the overstated gross receipts and payment of personal expenses with business funds; and there was no Confrontation Clause violation in the district court's limiting of the cross-examination of two Government witnesses. The court joined its sister circuits in declining to extend the Marinello nexus requirement to 18 U.S.C. 371's defraud clause, and accordingly hold that Count One of the indictment is legally sufficient. Finally, the court concluded that there are no errors that the court could aggregate to find cumulative error. View "United States v. Herman" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions for one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, based on their efforts to defraud the FDA and to misbrand drugs. Defendants, along with two corporate entities that they owned and controlled, owned and operated a chain of smoke shops in Texas and New Mexico.The court concluded that the district court's conspiracy-to-defraud jury instructions were correct statements of law; a jury would have concluded that defendants' misbranding tended to influence, or was capable of influencing, the FDA's decisionmaking based on evidence presented at trial; and the district court's jury instruction "substantially covered" defendants' proposed instruction and did not misstate the law. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for conspiracy to defraud the FDA; the evidence was sufficient to prove the felony misbranding offense; and defendants' 36-month sentences were substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Gas Pipe, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a handwritten, pro se 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint against defendant, an assistant warden, alleging that he had received threats from "a sexually violent predator inmate" on his cell block. A committee, chaired by defendant, denied plaintiff's transfer requests and, about a month later, plaintiff was attacked by the inmate who had previously threatened him. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights by deliberately failing to protect him, seeking a preliminary injunction and damages.The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of the action and remanded to the district court for consideration of the merits of plaintiff's allegations in the first instance, as well as any response from the assistant prison warden. In this case, although the complaint did not specifically allege what defendant knew, it does allege that defendant called plaintiff a "snitch" and denied him a transfer for that reason. The court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to have his allegations addressed by the district court in the first instance. View "Alvarez v. Akwitti" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's guilty plea for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court concluded that there is no evidence in the record that defendant had either actual or constructive possession of the .38 revolver. In this case, defendant signed a factual basis document indicating the only interaction he had with the firearm was that he had "touched" a .38 caliber revolver while at a friend's house. The court explained that the plain text of section 922(g), logic, and analysis of precedent all reveal that mere touching is insufficient to establish possession. Therefore, the district court plainly erred by accepting the guilty plea and the error affected defendant's substantial rights. The court remanded for entry of a new plea and for further proceedings. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other employees, filed suit against her former employer, US Corrections, L.L.C. (USC), and two other entities, alleging an overtime-pay claim and a recordkeeping claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The district court dismissed the claims and entered judgment in favor of the employer and the company's payroll administrator.The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Motor Carrier Act's (MCA) exemption governs plaintiff's job with the employer. The court explained that the district court correctly construed the law to determine that the MCA exemption governs the relationship between plaintiff and USC, irrespective of Jeanna's Act and its implementing regulations. However, the court nonetheless concluded that the district court erred in applying the MCA exemption to foreclose the otherwise plausible FLSA overtime-pay claim alleged by plaintiff in her complaint, at least at the pleading stage. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "White v. U.S. Corrections, LLC" on Justia Law

NYK Line, a company incorporated and headquartered in Japan, chartered a ship that collided with a U.S. Navy destroyer in Japanese territorial waters, killing seven sailors and injuring at least forty others. Two sets of plaintiffs filed suit against NYK Line: the Douglass plaintiffs are personal representatives of the seven U.S. sailors killed and the Alcide plaintiffs represent those injured in the collision and their family members.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the consolidated actions based on lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The court first concluded that personal jurisdiction is only proper in this case if the Fifth Amendment due process test is satisfied. The court followed Patterson v. Aker Sols., Inc., 826 F.3d 231, 233 (5th Cir. 2016), and its application of Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), in addressing whether the district court could constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over NYK Line, and agreed with the district court that it could not. Bound by the rule of orderliness, the court agreed with the district court that personal jurisdiction over NYK Line cannot be constitutionally established under existing Fifth Circuit precedent. In this case, NYK Line's contacts with the United States represent a small portion of its contacts worldwide and its American employees represent less than 1.5 percent of all employees. The court explained that, although NYK Line has considerable contacts with the United States, these are not so substantial and of such a nature that NYK Line is essentially rendered at home in the United States. View "Douglass v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Mann Hospitality, owner of the Sunset Inn in Caldwell, Texas, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that the inn's information, posted on third-party booking websites, failed to identify rooms accessible to disabled persons like her.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff failed to show the necessary concrete interest to support standing. In this case, plaintiff had no definite plans to travel to the Sunset Inn or anywhere else in Texas. Nor does she allege she tried, or intends to try, to book a room at the Sunset Inn. The court vacated the district court's award of attorneys' fees to Mann under 28 U.S.C. 1919, concluding that the district court erred in doing so because section 1919 authorizes "just costs" but not attorneys' fees. View "Laufer v. Mann Hospitality, LLC" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's denial without prejudice of defendant's motion for compassionate release. The court joined other circuits in its subsequent opinion, United States v. Shkambi, No. 20-40543, 2021 WL 1291609 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2021), holding that district courts are not bound by the policy statement in USSG 1B1.13 when considering motions brought by prisoners like defendant under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A).The court explained that Shkambi forecloses the government's contention that section 1B1.13 applies to defendant's motion for compassionate release. In this case, the district court declined to consider whether it had discretion to deviate from the "extraordinary and compelling reasons" articulated in section 1B1.13, including whether it could consider the First Step Act's nonretroactive reduced penalties for 18 U.S.C. 924(c) convictions. Thus, as clarified in Shkambi, the district court effectively considered that policy statement binding. The court also rejected the government's contention that the district court relied solely on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to reassess defendant's motion for compassionate release. View "United States v. Cooper" on Justia Law

Onyeri recruited others to assist in stealing credit card numbers and gift cards, engaged a bank employee to open a bank account using stolen identities, used stolen identities to fabricate tax returns, and bribed mailmen to intercept tax-refund checks. The conspirators' debit card fraud resulted in ATM withdrawals of $20,000 and $40,000 at a time. Onyeri and Akwar were charged in Texas in 2012. Onyeri was then out on bond for other (violent) crimes, and had previously been incarcerated for three years. Judge Kocurek was assigned to Onyeri’s case. Onyeri pled guilty. Judge Kocurek placed him on three-year deferred adjudication probation. The government later moved to proceed with adjudication, alleging that Onyeri had engaged in the fraudulent use of debit cards in Louisiana. Judge Kocurek suggested Onyeri could face several years in prison. Onyeri went to Kocurek’s home and shot Kocurek. Seriously injured, she survived. Onyeri bragged about the shooting. Officers eventually located and apprehended Onyeri.Onyeri was convicted under RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d): mail fraud, bribery of a public official, wire fraud, identity theft, access device fraud, money laundering, witness tampering, and attempted murder. Following his conviction, Onyeri’s father, a former teacher, died. Onyeri was to receive benefits from the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRST). The district court ordered TRST to pay Onyeri’s benefits toward his restitution obligation. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the court erred by admitting evidence obtained from the traffic stop because it was not supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion; that there was insufficient evidence to support a RICO conspiracy conviction; and that the annuity payments were exempt from garnishment. View "United States v. Onyeri" on Justia Law