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

Enriqueta Diaz, a former county judge and resident of Maverick County, opposed the issuance of certificates of obligation for water and sewer improvements by the Maverick County Commissioners Court. She collected signatures on a petition to force an election on the issue. Despite her petition, the commissioners decided to issue the certificates without holding an election. During the meeting, Diaz heckled the commissioners, leading County Judge English Cantu to hold her in contempt and order her removal. Diaz was detained outside in the rain for several hours and later sentenced to 24 hours in jail, though she was released without being confined.Diaz filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, seeking damages for false imprisonment and bystander liability against County Judge English Cantu and three county commissioners. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, rejecting their claims of state sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, and qualified immunity. The defendants appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that constitutional county judges in Texas are not entitled to state sovereign immunity as they are considered local rather than state officers. The court also determined that English Cantu was not entitled to judicial immunity because he was acting in an administrative capacity, not a judicial one, during the commissioners court meeting. Additionally, the court found that English Cantu was not entitled to qualified immunity because he acted without discretionary authority in holding Diaz in contempt. However, the court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity for the commissioners on the bystander liability claims, as the law was not clearly established that they had a duty to intervene. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Diaz v. Cantu" on Justia Law

Adrian Dantrell Wesley was convicted of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. At sentencing, he received a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining premises for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance. Wesley appealed the enhancement, arguing that there was no evidence he possessed or controlled the premises.The case originated when Fort Worth police received a tip about drug distribution at a residence on Griggs Avenue. A confidential informant purchased methamphetamine from Wesley at the residence. Subsequent police surveillance and searches revealed drugs, firearms, and other evidence linking Wesley to the premises. Wesley was indicted on multiple counts of possession with intent to distribute and firearm possession. He proceeded with a bench trial on stipulated facts for one count and was found guilty. The pre-sentence report included the premises enhancement, which Wesley contested, arguing lack of evidence of his control over the premises.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas overruled Wesley’s objection and applied the enhancement, finding that Wesley used the residence for drug distribution, had a key, and controlled access to the premises. Wesley appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the evidence supported the finding that Wesley maintained the premises for drug distribution. The court noted that Wesley’s repeated use of the residence for drug transactions, possession of a key, and control over access to the premises justified the enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(12). The court found no clear error in the district court’s determination and affirmed the application of the sentencing enhancement. View "United States v. Wesley" on Justia Law

The United States Army Corps of Engineers partnered with the City of Dallas on the Dallas Floodway Extension (DFE) project, which began in 1999. Plaintiffs Timpy Ondrusek and Barbara Ann Ondrusek Wolfe own property that Dallas attempted to condemn for the DFE. They sued the Corps and the City in federal district court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), claiming the Corps failed to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to account for new information, violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the claims, determining the case was not justiciable. The court found the plaintiffs had not shown Article III standing and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, but the district court again concluded the case was not justiciable, noting the levee design phase was only 35 percent complete, and dismissed the case as unripe without prejudice, denying leave to amend.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found the claims against the Army Corps of Engineers were ripe for decision, as the Corps' failure to comply with NEPA presented a present controversy. The court determined the plaintiffs had standing, as they alleged a concrete and particularized risk of environmental harm to their property due to the Corps' failure to prepare an SEIS. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the suit with respect to the Army Corps of Engineers, affirmed the dismissal with respect to the City of Dallas, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ondrusek v. United States Army Corps of Engineers" on Justia Law

Derek Hall, a Senior Account Executive at UiPath Incorporated, alleged retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after being placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) and subsequently terminated. Hall, who was 62 years old, filed an internal complaint against his supervisor for age discrimination on the same day he was placed on the PIP. UiPath and Hall later entered into a Separation and Release of Claims agreement, terminating Hall's employment. Hall then joined Accelirate, Inc., but was terminated shortly after his former supervisor at UiPath informed Accelirate of complaints about Hall.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of UiPath. The court found that Hall failed to establish a causal link between his protected activity (the age discrimination complaint) and the adverse employment action (his termination). Additionally, Hall did not successfully rebut UiPath’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action, which was based on Hall's performance issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, noting that Hall did not challenge the district court’s determination that UiPath had provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action. Hall's failure to address this aspect of the district court’s analysis in his appeal effectively forfeited his argument. Consequently, the appellate court did not need to address the issue of causation and upheld the summary judgment in favor of UiPath. View "Hall v. UiPath" on Justia Law

Keith Todd Ashley, a licensed financial advisor, was charged and convicted on 17 counts of violating federal law, including mail and wire fraud, Hobbs Act robbery, and bank theft. He operated a Ponzi scheme and allegedly murdered one of his clients to steal funds from the client’s bank account and benefit from the client’s life insurance proceeds. The district court sentenced Ashley to 240 months’ imprisonment for each of 15 counts of wire and mail fraud and imposed life sentences for his convictions of Hobbs Act robbery and bank theft.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Ashley was found guilty on all counts presented. He filed motions for continuance and severance, which were denied by the district court. The jury found Ashley guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced him accordingly. Ashley then appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for most of his convictions, the reasonableness of his sentence, and the denial of his motions for continuance and severance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The government conceded that there was insufficient evidence to convict Ashley of five counts and that the life-sentence enhancement for his conviction of bank theft did not apply. The Fifth Circuit agreed, affirming some of Ashley’s convictions, vacating others, and remanding the case for resentencing and further proceedings. Specifically, the court affirmed Ashley’s convictions on Counts 1, 3, 14, and 19, vacated his convictions on Counts 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18, and remanded for resentencing. The court also addressed Ashley’s challenges to the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence and the cumulative error doctrine but found no reversible error in those respects. View "United States v. Ashley" on Justia Law

Spring Siders, a Christian evangelist, sought to share her religious message outside a public amphitheater in Brandon, Mississippi. The City of Brandon had enacted an ordinance restricting protests and demonstrations near the amphitheater during events. Siders challenged the constitutionality of this ordinance after being directed by police to a designated protest area, which she found unsuitable for her activities. She argued that the ordinance infringed on her First Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Siders' request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the ordinance. The court found that Siders had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim, relying on a similar case, Herridge v. Montgomery County, which upheld restrictions on street preaching near a concert venue for public safety reasons.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the ordinance was content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny. It found that the ordinance was narrowly tailored to serve the significant government interest of public safety and traffic control during events at the amphitheater. The court also determined that the ordinance left open ample alternative channels for communication, as Siders could still engage in her activities in the designated protest area and other locations outside the restricted area.The Fifth Circuit concluded that Siders had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her First Amendment claim. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. View "Siders v. City of Brandon" on Justia Law

Alejandro Martinez was walking home when Officer Cantu stopped him for walking on the wrong side of the street, in violation of the Texas Transportation Code. Martinez initially complied but then walked away. Cantu took Martinez to the ground to handcuff him. Other officers arrived, and Martinez was taken to a hospital, where he was found to have no serious injuries and was cleared for jail.Martinez sued the City of Rosenberg and several officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the municipal liability claim against the City for failure to state a claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York. The court also granted summary judgment for the officers on qualified immunity grounds, finding no constitutional violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Monell claim, agreeing that Martinez's complaint was conclusory and lacked factual support. The court also affirmed the summary judgment for the officers, finding that Officer Cantu had probable cause to arrest Martinez for violating the Texas Transportation Code and that the force used was reasonable. The court noted that Martinez's injuries were de minimis and that the bystander liability claim could not stand without an underlying constitutional violation. The court concluded that the officers were protected by qualified immunity and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Martinez v. City of Rosenberg" on Justia Law

Betty Butler pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony. This charge stemmed from a DEA search warrant executed at her home, where agents found a firearm and a small amount of marijuana. Butler admitted to possessing the firearm. She was subsequently indicted and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, with the government alleging that she qualified for a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) due to her prior serious drug offenses.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi conducted a factual inquiry into Butler’s prior convictions and determined that she had at least three convictions for serious drug offenses committed on different occasions. This finding enhanced her sentence to a statutory minimum of 180 months in prison under the ACCA. Butler objected, arguing that a jury should determine whether her prior offenses occurred on different occasions, but the district court overruled her objections based on existing precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court acknowledged that the Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v. United States required a jury to resolve the ACCA’s “different occasions” inquiry unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the lack of a jury determination in Butler’s case was harmless error. The court reasoned that any rational jury would have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Butler committed her previous serious drug offenses on different occasions based on the entire record. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit affirmed Butler’s sentence and the district court’s final judgment. View "United States v. Butler" on Justia Law

Enrique Morales was sentenced to 188 months in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to operate an illegal money-transmitting business and conspiracy to launder funds. His presentence report calculated a total offense level of 41, including a four-level enhancement for his role as an organizer/leader of criminal activity. Morales had no criminal history points, resulting in a guideline range of 324 to 405 months, which was adjusted to 300 months due to statutory maximums. The government recommended a downward departure for his substantial assistance, and the district court sentenced him to 188 months in total.Morales filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the new zero-point-offender provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which allows for a decrease in offense level for certain offenders. The district court denied the motion, stating that Morales was ineligible for the reduction because he had received an aggravating-role adjustment under USSG § 3B1.1(a).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that to qualify for the zero-point-offender reduction under USSG § 4C1.1, a defendant must meet all criteria, including not having received an adjustment under § 3B1.1 and not being engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise. Since Morales received a § 3B1.1 adjustment, he was ineligible for the reduction. The court concluded that either receiving a § 3B1.1 adjustment or engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise is sufficient to disqualify a defendant from the reduction. Thus, the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Morales" on Justia Law

Andre Louis Keller drove to a permanent immigration checkpoint where a Customs & Border Protection (CBP) canine alerted to his vehicle. Upon searching, agents found an alien unlawfully present in the United States concealed under luggage. Keller conditionally pleaded guilty and appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence found in the vehicle.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a hearing on Keller’s motion to suppress. Testimonies were provided by CBP Agent Jesse Sandoval, Matthew B. Devaney from CBP’s Canine Academy, and Andre Falco Jimenez, a private police dog trainer. The district court denied Keller’s motion, leading to his conditional guilty plea. Keller was sentenced to 20 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. He then appealed the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that stopping a vehicle for brief questioning at a permanent immigration checkpoint is not a Fourth Amendment search and does not require probable cause. The court found that the canine’s alert provided probable cause to search Keller’s vehicle. The court also concluded that the canine’s actions did not constitute an unlawful search and that the district court did not err in its ruling. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Keller’s motion to suppress. View "United States v. Keller" on Justia Law