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

Sekhar Rao was involved in a scheme to defraud TRICARE, a federal health benefit plan, by ordering medically unnecessary toxicology and DNA cancer screening tests. These tests were billed to TRICARE through a shell company, ADAR Group, LLC, which set up fraudulent testing sites. Rao, a physician, was hired to sign off on these tests without reviewing patient medical information or meeting the patients. He was paid per test ordered. The scheme involved using a signature stamp of Rao’s signature to sign requisition forms, which Rao allegedly knew about and consented to.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Rao was acquitted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud but was convicted of two counts of substantive health care fraud related to specific fraudulent claims submitted to TRICARE. The district court sentenced him to 48 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, and calculated the loss amount under the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on the intended loss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Rao raised three issues on appeal: the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions, the exclusion of testimony regarding statements made to him by the scheme’s leader about legal vetting, and the calculation of the loss amount under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Fifth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court’s decisions. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Rao caused the submission of the fraudulent claims and that he knew about and authorized the use of his signature stamp. The court also held that the district court did not plainly err in excluding the testimony about legal vetting and did not err in calculating the intended loss amount. The Fifth Circuit affirmed Rao’s convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Rao" on Justia Law

Hamzah Ali, a legal immigrant from Yemen and Dubai, retained Azhar Chaudhary as his attorney in February 2017 and paid him $810,000 over three months. Chaudhary claimed this was a nonrefundable retainer, while Ali asserted it was for hourly billing. The bankruptcy court found that Chaudhary did little work of value for Ali and that much of his testimony was false. Ali fired Chaudhary in October 2017 and later learned from another attorney that most of Chaudhary’s advice was misleading or false.Ali sued Chaudhary and his law firm in Texas state court in 2018 for breach of contract, quantum meruit, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligence, and gross negligence. In October 2021, Riverstone Resort, an entity owned by Chaudhary, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In May 2022, Ali sued Chaudhary, his law firm, and Riverstone in bankruptcy court, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and seeking a constructive trust over Riverstone’s property. The bankruptcy court dismissed Ali’s claims against Chaudhary and his firm, citing lack of jurisdiction or abstention, and granted a take-nothing judgment for Riverstone based on the statute of limitations.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed all appeals and affirmed the bankruptcy court’s judgment. Ali appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the bankruptcy court erred in not equitably tolling the statute of limitations and that Chaudhary had fraudulently concealed his cause of action.The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeals of Chaudhary, his law firm, and Riverstone, as they were not aggrieved parties. The court reversed the district court’s judgment in favor of Riverstone and remanded the case to the bankruptcy court to consider whether equitable tolling should apply due to Chaudhary’s alleged misconduct. View "Azhar Chaudhary Law v. Ali" on Justia Law

Joseph Anthony Borino, as part of a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony (wire fraud) on July 8, 2021. He was sentenced to one year and one day of imprisonment on November 1, 2022. On March 30, 2023, the district court ordered restitution of $21,223,036.37 under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), to be paid jointly and severally with Denis Joachim, Borino’s employer and co-conspirator.The district court proceedings began with the indictment of Denis and Donna Joachim in August 2018, followed by Borino’s separate indictment in November 2019. Borino was charged with conspiracy to defraud the IRS, making false statements, and wire fraud. He later pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony in June 2021. The district court adopted the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSR) which attributed the entire loss of $25,543,340.78 to Borino, and scheduled a separate restitution hearing. At the restitution hearing, the court calculated the restitution amount based on the fees paid by the victims during the period of Borino’s offense, minus the claims paid by TTFG.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Borino’s appeal, where he challenged the restitution order on three grounds: the applicability of the MVRA to his offense, the proof of actual pecuniary loss to the victims, and the causation of the losses. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, holding that the MVRA applied to Borino’s misprision offense because it involved concealment of wire fraud, a crime committed by fraud or deceit. The court found that the government had sufficiently proven the victims’ actual losses and that Borino’s continuous concealment of the fraud directly and proximately caused the victims’ losses. The court concluded that the district court did not err in ordering restitution of $21,223,036.37. View "United States v. Borino" on Justia Law

In June 2022, Juan Jose Vega-Santos was charged with illegal reentry into the United States following removal, under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)–(b). He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. The district court sentenced him to 60 months in prison, an upward variance from the advisory guidelines range, and imposed three years of supervised release with special conditions, including a requirement to undergo a psychosexual evaluation and participate in sex offender treatment if recommended by an evaluator.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas imposed the special condition as part of Vega-Santos's supervised release due to his prior felony conviction for sexual intercourse with a minor. Vega-Santos did not challenge this condition in the district court. On appeal, he argued that the condition constituted an unlawful delegation of the district court’s sentencing authority and was impermissibly ambiguous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the special condition requiring Vega-Santos to participate in sex offender treatment if recommended by an evaluator constituted an unlawful delegation of judicial authority. The court noted that the imposition of a sentence, including the terms and conditions of supervised release, is a core judicial function that cannot be delegated. The court found that the district court's error was clear or obvious and affected Vega-Santos's substantial rights. The error also seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the special condition and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Vega-Santos" on Justia Law

The State of Texas placed a concertina wire fence along part of the border with Mexico in the Eagle Pass area to deter illegal crossings. The United States Border Patrol agents cut the wire multiple times, claiming it was necessary to fulfill their duty of patrolling the border to prevent illegal entry. Texas sued for an injunction, arguing that the Border Patrol was needlessly cutting the wire. The district court found that the Border Patrol was not hampered by the wire and had breached it numerous times without apparent purpose other than to allow migrants easier entrance. However, the court denied the injunction, citing the United States' sovereign immunity against Texas's claims.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied Texas's request for a preliminary injunction, despite agreeing with Texas on the facts. The court believed that the United States retained sovereign immunity. A motions panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed and granted a temporary injunction pending appeal. The United States sought relief in the Supreme Court, which vacated the injunction without providing reasons. The case was remanded to the district court to investigate events in Shelby Park, where Texas's actions were alleged to have obstructed Border Patrol operations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas is entitled to a preliminary injunction. The court held that the United States waived sovereign immunity as to Texas's state law claims under § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court also rejected the United States' arguments that the injunction was barred by intergovernmental immunity and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court found that Texas satisfied the injunction factors from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and granted Texas's request for a preliminary injunction, with modifications based on the district court's supplemental fact findings. View "Texas v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The case involves six plaintiffs who are users of Tornado Cash, a cryptocurrency mixing service that uses immutable smart contracts to anonymize transactions. Tornado Cash was sanctioned by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for allegedly facilitating money laundering for malicious actors, including North Korea. The plaintiffs argued that OFAC exceeded its statutory authority by designating Tornado Cash as a Specially Designated National (SDN) and blocking its smart contracts.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of the Treasury, finding that Tornado Cash is an entity that can be sanctioned, that its smart contracts constitute property, and that the Tornado Cash DAO has an interest in these smart contracts. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and focused on whether the immutable smart contracts could be considered "property" under IEEPA. The court concluded that these smart contracts are not property because they are not capable of being owned, controlled, or altered by anyone, including their creators. The court emphasized that property, by definition, must be ownable, and the immutable smart contracts do not meet this criterion. Consequently, the court held that OFAC exceeded its statutory authority by sanctioning Tornado Cash's immutable smart contracts.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to grant the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment based on the Administrative Procedure Act. The court did not address whether Tornado Cash qualifies as an entity or whether it has an interest in the smart contracts, as the determination that the smart contracts are not property was dispositive. View "Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury" on Justia Law

Capstone Logistics, LLC, a company providing labor to other businesses, began supplying auditors to Associated Wholesale Grocers in 2019. The auditors, including Joyce Henson, were responsible for checking groceries and ensuring order accuracy. Henson, hired as lead auditor, raised concerns about safety, training, and pay on behalf of the auditors. She also contacted Donny Rouse, a major customer, about her pay. After a meeting with Capstone officials, Henson sent a LinkedIn message to Rouse about the auditors' pay issues. Following a brief interaction with Associated Wholesale Grocers' Director Chris Griffin, Henson was terminated by Capstone's Vice President Tim Casey.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against Capstone, alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) for discharging Henson due to her protected concerted activities. An administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed the allegations, finding no sufficient causal connection between Henson's protected activities and her termination. The ALJ concluded that Henson's termination was more likely due to her efforts to secure better compensation for herself.The NLRB reversed the ALJ's decision, finding that Henson was discharged for engaging in protected concerted activity by sending the LinkedIn message to Rouse and because Capstone believed she had engaged in such activity during her conversation with Griffin. Capstone petitioned for review, and the NLRB cross-petitioned for enforcement of its order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found insufficient evidence to support the NLRB's finding that Capstone discharged Henson for sending the LinkedIn message. However, the court affirmed the NLRB's alternative determination that Capstone violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by discharging Henson because it believed she had engaged in protected concerted activity. The court denied Capstone's petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-application to enforce its order. View "Capstone Logistics v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Kenny Savoie, a former employee of Pritchard Energy Advisors, LLC (PGA), filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit against Thomas Pritchard, his former boss, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Savoie, a Louisiana resident, claimed that Pritchard, a Virginia resident, owed him compensation under a 2017 offer letter for work done on behalf of Empire Petroleum Corporation. Savoie alleged that Pritchard fraudulently informed him that PGA had not received any payments for his projects, thus denying him due compensation.The district court dismissed the case against Pritchard for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that Pritchard's contacts with Louisiana were made in his corporate capacity and were protected by the fiduciary shield doctrine. The court found that Savoie failed to establish any exceptions to this doctrine that would allow Pritchard's corporate contacts to be attributed to him personally.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the fiduciary shield doctrine, which prevents the exercise of personal jurisdiction based solely on a defendant's corporate acts, applied in this case. The court noted that Louisiana law recognizes the fiduciary shield doctrine and that Savoie did not establish any exceptions, such as piercing the corporate veil or alleging a tort for which Pritchard could be personally liable. Consequently, the court concluded that Pritchard's corporate contacts could not be used to establish personal jurisdiction over him in Louisiana. View "Savoie v. Pritchard" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Clarence Cocroft and Tru Source Medical Cannabis, L.L.C., challenged Mississippi's restrictions on advertising medical marijuana, arguing that the First Amendment protects their right to advertise because the state permits the underlying commercial transactions. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court applied the Central Hudson test for commercial speech and held that because federal law criminalizes marijuana, including medical marijuana, the advertising of such transactions does not qualify for First Amendment protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that under the Central Hudson test, commercial speech must concern lawful activity to receive First Amendment protection. Since the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits marijuana nationwide, including in Mississippi, the underlying commercial conduct is illegal. Therefore, the state faces no constitutional obstacle to restricting commercial speech related to unlawful transactions. The court concluded that the First Amendment does not protect the advertising of medical marijuana in Mississippi due to its illegal status under federal law. View "Cocroft v. Graham" on Justia Law

Edgar Hermosillo Minor pled guilty to four drug charges in 2022, including importing and possessing methamphetamine and fentanyl with intent to distribute. His presentence report calculated a base offense level of 34, adjusted for his minimal role and acceptance of responsibility, but added five levels due to a career-offender enhancement based on three prior federal marijuana-related convictions from 2000 and 2010. This enhancement placed him in a sentencing range of 262 to 327 months, whereas without it, the range would have been 121 to 151 months. Minor objected to the enhancement, arguing that a 2018 amendment to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) excluded hemp from the definition of marijuana, making his prior convictions no longer qualify as "controlled substance offenses." The district court overruled his objection and applied the enhancement, sentencing him to 180 months.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas overruled Minor's objection and applied the career-offender enhancement based on the CSA's definition of marijuana at the time of his prior convictions. Despite this, the court imposed a downward variance, sentencing Minor to 180 months, which he timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the CSA's definition of "controlled substance" in effect at the time of sentencing for the current offense should be used to determine whether prior convictions qualify for the career-offender enhancement. The court found that the district court erred by applying the enhancement based on the outdated definition of marijuana. The court also concluded that the error was not harmless, as the district court did not explicitly state that it would impose the same sentence regardless of the correct Guidelines range. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for resentencing. View "USA v. Minor" on Justia Law