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

On remand from the Supreme Court in light of Davis v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1060, 1061 (2020), which requires that unpreserved claims of factual error be reviewed under the full plain error test, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed defendant's sentence because he failed to show that the district court committed a clear or obvious error.The court concluded that, because the district court's implicit finding that the two state offenses were not relevant to the federal offense is plausible in light of the record as a whole, defendant's arguments related to his prior state convictions must fail. Furthermore, the district court's implicit finding that the pending state charges were not relevant to the federal offense is also plausible in light of the record as a whole, and defendant's argument that the district court erred in declining to concurrently run his sentence with the anticipated state sentences fails as well. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err by failing to explain its decision to deny defendant's request to run his federal sentence concurrently with the uncharged state sentence. Even assuming the district court's failure to state the reasons for running the sentence consecutively was an error that was clear or obvious, defendant has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. The court further concluded that any additional explanation of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, or the imposition of the maximum 262-month sentence of the guidelines range, would not have changed his sentence. View "United States v. Horton" on Justia Law

In this case, the en banc court considered the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., and the validity of implementing regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in its 2016 Final Rule (Final Rule). The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment in part, declaring that the ICWA and the Final Rule contravene multiple constitutional provisions and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). After defendants appealed, a panel of this court reversed and rendered judgment for defendants. The en banc court then reconsidered the case.The en banc court unanimously held that at least one plaintiff has standing to challenge Congress's authority under Article I of the Constitution to enact ICWA and to press anticommandeering and nondelegation challenges to specific ICWA provisions, and that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Final Rule as unlawful under the APA. The en banc court is equally divided as to whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge two provisions of ICWA, 25 U.S.C. 1913 and 1914, on equal protection grounds, and the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs can assert this claim is therefore affirmed without a precedential opinion. An en banc majority also held that plaintiffs have standing to assert their equal protection challenges to other provisions of ICWA.On the merits, the en banc majority agrees that, as a general proposition, Congress had the authority to enact ICWA under Article I of the Constitution, and that the ICWA's "Indian child" classification does not violate equal protection. The en banc court is equally divided, however, as to whether plaintiffs prevail on their equal protection challenge to ICWA's adoptive placement preference for "other Indian families," and its foster care placement preference for a licensed "Indian foster home." An en banc majority held that ICWA's "active efforts," section 1912(d), expert witness, section 1912(e) and (f), and recordkeeping requirements, section 1915(e), unconstitutionally commandeer state actors. However, the en banc court is equally divided on whether the placement preferences, section 1915(a)–(b), violate anticommandeering to the extent they direct action by state agencies and officials; on whether the notice provision, section 1912(a), unconstitutionally commandeers state agencies; and on whether the placement record provision, section 1951(a), unconstitutionally commandeers state courts.Furthermore, an en banc majority held that several challenged ICWA provisions validly preempt state law and so do not commandeer states, and that section 1915(c) does not violate the non-delegation doctrine. Finally, an en banc majority held that the BIA did not violate the APA by concluding in the Final Rule that it may issue regulations binding on state courts. However, an en banc majority also held that the Final Rule violated the APA to the extent it implemented these unconstitutional provisions and that 25 C.F.R. 23.132(b) violated the APA. An en banc majority held that the Final Rule did not violate the APA in any other respect. Accordingly, the en banc court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and rendered judgment accordingly. View "Brackeen v. Haaland" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 120-month sentence for wire fraud where he defrauded the victim out of his life savings. Defendant told the victim that he would invest the money in a "high-performing fund called Blueshare Capital Fund" but no such fund existed. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court applied an eighty-seven-month variance based on the devastating impact of defendant's crime on the victim. In this case, defendant's crime took all of the victim's life savings, forcing the victim to live off of government assistance for the rest of his life. The district court also relied on the need to deter defendant from future crimes and to promote respect for the law. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion purely based on the length of the sentence. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in choosing how much weight to give the sentencing factors and, at bottom, by determining that defendant's promise to pay was not credible in light of his fraud. View "United States v. Navarro-Jusino" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after she violated her conditions of supervised release. In this case, the district court considered an incorrect advisory range, but defendant failed to object. Applying plain error review, the court declined to exercise its discretion in remedying the error because defendant's sentence on revocation does not undermine the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. View "United States v. Mims" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Lexington Law and its vendor, Progrexion, for purportedly perpetrating a fraud in which the firm failed to disclose that it was sending letters to the companies in its clients' names and on their behalves. After a jury agreed that defendants violated Texas law in committing fraud and fraud by non-disclosure, the district court set aside the verdict and issued judgment in favor of defendants as a matter of law.The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding that plaintiffs have not shown that defendants committed fraud. In this case, the district court concluded that defendants did not make any false representations (material or otherwise) when signing and sending the dispute letters because Lexington Law had the legal right to sign its clients' names on the correspondence it sent on their behalf to data furnishers who reported inaccurate information about the clients' credit. Furthermore, Progrexion cannot be liable for fraud since it, like Lexington Law, did not make any material misrepresentations. The court also concluded that plaintiffs' fraud by non-disclosure claim must be dismissed because they did not justifiably rely on any failure of defendants to disclose material facts, and plaintiffs have not shown that defendants had a duty to disclose that they were the ones actually sending the dispute letters. Additionally, plaintiffs have not shown that Progrexion disclosed any facts—material or otherwise—and so cannot be liable for fraud by nondisclosure. The court explained that the fact that Lexington Law had the legal right to send dispute letters on their clients behalves and in their names suggests that the firm did not make any false representations, and thus the firm did not create any false impressions requiring disclosure. Finally, plaintiffs waived their conspiracy claim by failing to move for judgment as a matter of law on the claim before and after the case was submitted to the jury or for a new trial. View "The CBE Group, Inc. v. Lexington Law Firm" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of receiving material containing child pornography. Even applying stricter de novo review, the court concluded that receipt of pornographic computer files is properly chargeable as receipt of material containing child pornography under 8 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2)(B).The court rejected defendant's contention that the evidence at trial permitted the judge to conclude only that five files contained child pornography, and the dates of receipt proven for those files materially vary from the dates alleged in the indictment. Rather, the court concluded that the evidence at trial indicated that far more than five files contained child pornography and, even if there were only five files, the dates of receipt defendant points to for those files do not materially vary from the dates alleged in the indictment. The court remanded for the district court to correct a clerical error in the judgment, which mistakenly indicated that defendant pleaded guilty instead of being found guilty after a bench trial. View "United States v. Knowlton" on Justia Law

After a police officer shot and killed Jason Roque, a suicidal man experiencing a mental-health crisis, Roque's parents filed suit against the officer, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment, concluding that there are factual disputes regarding whether the officer's second and third shots were excessive and objectively unreasonable. In this case, the factual disputes relate to whether a reasonable officer would have known that Jason was incapacitated after the first shot. The court also concluded that precedent shows that by 2017, it was clearly established—and possibly even obvious—that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment if he shoots an unarmed, incapacitated suspect who is moving away from everyone present at the scene. Therefore, if the factual disputes are resolved in plaintiffs' favor, the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Roque v. Harvel" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Texas: 1. Whether Dillon Gage's losses were sustained consequent upon handing over insured property to UPS against a fraudulent check, causing the policy exclusion to apply. And if that answer is yes: 2. Whether UPS's alleged errors are considered an independent cause of the losses under Texas law. View "Dillon Gage, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the school district, alleging race, sex, and age discrimination claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act as well as retaliation and due process claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff was employed by the school district as principal of a middle school until the school district concluded that plaintiff had violated several district policies and voted not to renew her contract.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the school district. In regard to plaintiff's state-law discrimination claims, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination where she failed to show either that she was replaced by someone outside her protected class or treated less favorably than similarly situated individuals who were outside her protected class. The court also concluded that plaintiff's sex discrimination claim failed where the undisputed facts establish that plaintiff was not replaced by someone outside her protected class and she failed to raise a dispute of fact to show that she was treated less favorably than other similarly situated individuals. The court further concluded that plaintiff's age discrimination claim failed where the school district rebutted the presumption of discrimination by offering a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its nonrenewal of plaintiff's contract. In this case, the school district's investigation found, among other things, that plaintiff engaged in impermissible fundraising activities and worked on an outside film project during her working hours. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to present evidence that the school district's stated reasons were pretextual. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's due process claim where she failed to establish that she has a protected liberty interest. View "Ross v. Judson Independent School District" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a legal permanent resident, was twice charged as removable by the federal government, once in 2012 and once in 2016. Petitioner challenged the second removability charge as barred by res judicata. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the BIA's determination that res judicata did not bar the second removability charge because it was based on a different statutory provision and was unavailable to the Government when the first charge was brought. Petitioner also argued that the Government failed to meet 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)'s statutory requirements and that the BIA denied him due process of law. The court concluded that these two issues have not been addressed by the BIA in the first instance and thus they are not ripe for disposition. Accordingly, the court dismissed in part and denied the petition in part. View "Rodriguez v. Garland" on Justia Law