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

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.The court vacated defendant's condition of supervised release requiring defendant to "participate in an inpatient or outpatient substance-abuse treatment program" supervised by defendant's probation officer. The court concluded that the option to require inpatient rehabilitation delegates to the probation officer the judicial decision to significantly restrict defendant's liberty during treatment. In this case, because of defendant's short ten-month sentence, the district court should not have delegated the decision to further restrict defendant's liberty during the course of treatment while on supervised release. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint alleging that Southern Pine is required to distribute to them $112.5 million in "excess revenues." Because the previously-enacted 1936 Electric Power Association Act, Miss. Code Ann. 77-5-201, did not grant plaintiffs a vested right, the court concluded that the modern statute provides the applicable law. Under the modern statute, the court concluded that plaintiffs have not stated a claim for relief. In this case, plaintiffs seek to impose a specific asset-to-equity ratio beyond which any and all revenues must be deemed excessive and returned to the member-ratepayers. The court explained that plaintiffs do not have a right to revenues until the board deems that those revenues are "not needed" for other purposes. Because the board has not done so, plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. View "Harper v. Southern Pine Electric Cooperative" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.The court affirmed defendant's 120-month sentence for harboring an illegal alien. The court held that defendant waived his duplicity argument by pleading guilty; even if the district court erroneously applied the reckless endangerment and bodily injury sentencing enhancements, the errors were harmless; defendant's contention that the district court impermissibly delegated judicial authority through the wording of two special conditions of supervised release, the required alcohol and drug treatment, fails under either plain error or de novo review; and defendant's sentence was within the Guidelines and he fails to demonstrate that an explanation of the revocation sentence would have changed his sentence. View "United States v. Medel-Guadalupe" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. After the district court rejected the petition and denied a certificate of appealability (COA), petitioner sought a COA under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) to appeal numerous issues.The Fifth Circuit granted a COA and received additional briefing on a single issue pertinent to his Batson challenges to the jury's makeup. The court affirmed the district court's refusal to consider newly discovered evidence relevant to petitioner's Batson claim, because Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011), bars its consideration. Furthermore, the court found no error in the district court's conclusions where petitioner failed to meet the standards embodied in section 2254(d); he has no basis to offer evidence outside the state record; and a certain spreadsheet was correctly barred from consideration in federal court. The court rejected petitioner's five other claims for relief and denied a COA on each of these claims. View "Broadnax v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

An alien who entered the United States without being "inspected and admitted or paroled" may not have his status adjusted to lawful permanent resident by virtue of obtaining Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Petitioner, a native of Honduras, challenged the USCIS's denial of his application to obtain lawful-permanent-resident status in district court. The government moved to dismiss, but the district court denied the motion and remanded to the agency. The government appealed.The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the district court incorrectly interpreted and applied the relevant immigration statutes. The court held that the text of the relevant statutory provisions confirms that TPS does not cure the bar to status adjustment in 8 U.S.C. 1255. The court rejected petitioner's and amici's contention that because a TPS recipient is considered as "being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant," section 1255(a)'s requirement that an alien be inspected and admitted is satisfied. The court concluded that this contention failed because granting TPS does not constitute an admission under section 1255(a); granting TPS does not constitute a waiver of the admission requirement in section 1255; and being "admissible" under section 1254a does not create an alternative method for satisfying the requirement that one be admitted under section 1255. In this case, the court concluded that TPS does not excuse petitioner from the requirement of being inspected and admitted into the United States. The court explained that, because petitioner was never lawfully admitted, he cannot now seek to adjust his status under section 1255(a). View "Rodriguez Solorzano v. Mayorkas" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's claims because they are barred by the statute of limitations. In this case, plaintiff filed suit against defendant, in his individual capacity, alleging that plaintiff's property had been illegally seized after plaintiff's arrest.The court concluded that plaintiff failed to file his equitable claim within six years, making his current lawsuit untimely. Even if plaintiff's Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion was timely, the court explained that that has no bearing on the outcome of this case. Because the court held that plaintiff's equitable claim is time-barred, the court need not address plaintiff's suspicions about whether the government still possesses his property or whether defendant's sworn affidavit is admissible evidence to prove that plaintiff's property had been destroyed. Because Bivens actions are limited by a two-year statute of limitations, plaintiff's Bivens action is also time-barred. Finally, the court concluded that exceptional circumstances do not exist in this case to warrant the appointment of counsel. View "Tampico v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to reduce defendant's sentence under the First Step Act. The court held that defendant's dual-object conspiracy offense under 21 U.S.C. 846, which was committed before August 3, 2010, is a covered offense under Section 404(a) of the First Step Act. The court also held that the district court had statutory authority under Section 404 to reduce defendant's sentence from 233 months to 180 months. Finally, the court held that neither of Section 404(c)'s limitations apply. Therefore, defendant is eligible for relief under the First Step Act. View "United States v. Winters" on Justia Law

Texas and Oklahoma oil and gas producers challenge the bankruptcy court's grant in part and denial in part of Deutsche Bank's motion for partial summary judgment in a lien priority dispute. The competing security interests arose out of proceeds from the sale of oil that debtor purchased from appellants before declaring bankruptcy.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's order, holding that the bankruptcy court did not err in holding that the warranty of title did not waive the Producers' rights to assert a lien under either Texas UCC 9.343 or the Oklahoma Lien Act; because the warranties did not waive Producers' claims to proceeds in the hands of debtor, the Bank's reliance is misplaced on cases where producers attempted to collect from purchasers downstream of the first purchasers; and following Fishback Nursery, Inc. v. PNC Bank, N.A., 920 F.3d 932, 939-40 (5th Cir. 2019), Delaware law governs the competing priorities under either Texas choice of law or the federal independent judgment test. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's conclusion that the Bank's interests in the disputed collateral prime any interests held by the Texas Producers. Furthermore, the bankruptcy court correctly dismissed the Producers' affirmative defenses of estoppel, unclean hands, and waiver. View "Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. U.S. Energy Development Corp." on Justia Law

In a case arising out of the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by R. Allen Stanford and others, Stanford investors filed suit against defendants who provided banking services to Stanford. Appellants, who moved to intervene, are also Stanford investors and investment funds that purchased assignments of claims from Stanford investors.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of intervention as of right, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by balancing the Stallworth factors in determining that the motion to intervene was untimely. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a delay of 18 months weighed against timeliness; the existing parties would be prejudiced in the form of costly and inefficient discovery, as well as delay of final distribution; and the denial of intervention will not exclude appellants from recovery even if it were to prejudice them in some way. Finally, there are no unusual circumstances militating for or against timeliness.The court dismissed the appeal of the denial of permissive intervention for lack of jurisdiction where the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the request for permissive intervention was untimely. The court rejected the motion to strike the personal jurisdiction argument. View "Mendez v. Trustmark National Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a detainee in the Harris County jail awaiting trial, filed what he described as a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release from pretrial custody, contending that the conditions at the jail were insufficient to protect his constitutional rights in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis. The district court denied relief regardless of whether the petition was brought under federal habeas law, 28 U.S.C. 2241, or civil rights law, 42 U.S.C. 1983.The Fifth Circuit construed plaintiff's petition as seeking habeas relief and affirmed the district court's denial of such relief. The court concluded that the Great Writ does not, in this circuit, afford release for prisoners held in state custody due to adverse conditions of confinement. Therefore, plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). View "Rice v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law