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

In this case, the defendant, Louis Vernon Jackson, was involved in two separate drug busts in Louisiana in April and May 2020. During these busts, law enforcement found significant quantities of drugs, firearms, and drug paraphernalia in motel rooms linked to Jackson. Following these incidents, Jackson was indicted on multiple charges, including conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute Tramadol, possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.Jackson chose to represent himself throughout the trial process. The magistrate judge conducted a Faretta colloquy to ensure Jackson's waiver of his right to counsel was made knowingly and voluntarily. Despite repeated warnings about the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, Jackson insisted on proceeding pro se. Before the trial, the district judge conducted another Faretta colloquy to reaffirm Jackson's decision.The jury convicted Jackson on three counts: conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was acquitted on the charges of possession with intent to distribute Tramadol and possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking. Jackson was sentenced to 360 months of imprisonment and subsequently appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Jackson argued that the district court erred by not conducting a competency hearing sua sponte to determine his ability to represent himself. The Fifth Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the district court, noting that Jackson had been repeatedly warned about the challenges of self-representation and had demonstrated a rational understanding of the proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Jackson was competent to represent himself. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

In 2008, a class action was filed against officials from the City of Tenaha and Shelby County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs claimed that the officials had an illegal practice of targeting and seizing property from racial or ethnic minorities. A settlement agreement, including a consent decree, was reached, requiring the defendants to follow specific procedures to prevent future illegal stops. The decree also included a court-appointed monitor to ensure compliance. The consent decree was initially entered in 2013, amended in 2019, and expired in July 2020. Plaintiffs' motion to extend the decree was denied, and the County Defendants settled, leaving only the City Defendants in the case.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas handled the case, where class counsel filed four motions for attorney fees. The first three motions were granted, totaling $324,773.90. The fourth motion requested $88,553.33 for fees from April to December 2020. Initially denied as untimely, the decision was vacated and remanded by the appellate court. On reconsideration, the district court awarded $16,020, reducing the hourly rates and the hours deemed reasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court failed to provide class-wide notice of the attorney-fee motion as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h). This failure deprived class members of the opportunity to object to the fee motion. The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion by not enforcing the notice requirement and vacated the fee award, remanding the case for further proceedings to ensure compliance with Rule 23(h). View "Morrow v. Jones" on Justia Law

Dow Construction, L.L.C. leased property within a forced pooled drilling unit operated by BPX Operating Company. Dow received proceeds from the unit but disputed the deduction of post-production costs by BPX. Dow sought a judgment to recover these costs, while BPX sought dismissal and summary judgment on various grounds.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held that Dow had standing to sue and that the Louisiana doctrine of negotiorum gestio allowed operators to recover post-production costs. The court also ruled that the forced-pooling statute’s forfeiture provision included post-production costs and that claims under this statute were subject to a ten-year prescriptive period. BPX's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were partially granted and denied, leading to an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s interpretation that La. Rev. Stat. § 30:10(A)(3) applies to mineral interest owners unleased by the operator. However, it vacated the district court’s ruling that negotiorum gestio allows operators to recover post-production costs, following a Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Self v. BPX Operating Co. The court affirmed that post-production costs are included within the forfeiture provision of La. Rev. Stat. § 30:103.2. Finally, the court reversed the district court’s finding on the prescriptive period, holding that claims under § 30:103.2 are subject to a one-year prescriptive period, not ten years.The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Dow Construction v. BPX Operating Co." on Justia Law

Three-month-old La’Mello Parker died during a confrontation between his father, Eric Smith, and law enforcement. Smith, a fugitive wanted for double homicide, used La’Mello as a human shield and fired at officers, who returned fire, killing La’Mello. La’Mello’s grandfather and brother sued various law enforcement entities and officers, alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the case, finding that the officers’ actions did not constitute constitutional violations and that they were protected by qualified immunity. The court also dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claims, stating that the conduct did not shock the conscience, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that the officers did not violate La’Mello’s Fourth Amendment rights as their use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. The court noted that Smith posed a grave and immediate threat, and the officers’ decision to return fire was justified. The court also found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional. Additionally, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment claims failed as the officers’ actions did not shock the conscience. The court concluded that without an underlying constitutional violation, the bystander liability and municipal liability claims also failed. View "Estate of Parker v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Quintan Cockerell, a marketer for two compounding pharmacies, was convicted for receiving illegal kickbacks as part of a conspiracy to induce physicians to prescribe highly lucrative prescriptions. These pharmacies, including Xpress Compounding, focused on formulating expensive topical creams, resulting in significant reimbursements from federal insurers like TRICARE. Cockerell was involved in recruiting physicians, developing new formulas, and receiving commissions disguised as payments to his then-wife. He also provided financial incentives to physicians, including lavish vacations and investment opportunities, to encourage them to prescribe these creams.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas convicted Cockerell of violating the Anti-Kickback Statute, conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to 29 months of imprisonment, two years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $59,879,871 in restitution. Cockerell appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, alleged misstatements of law by the Government during trial, and the restitution order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that a reasonable jury could have convicted Cockerell based on the evidence presented. The court held that the Government provided sufficient evidence of Cockerell's involvement in the illegal kickback scheme and his intent to influence physicians. The court also found no reversible error in the Government's statements during closing arguments and upheld the restitution order, noting that Cockerell failed to provide evidence of legitimate services to offset the loss amount. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Cockerell" on Justia Law

The defendant, Justin Gregory Jubert, was charged with cyberstalking under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) and transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce. The charges arose from a prolonged online campaign where Jubert used multiple Facebook accounts to threaten, harass, and intimidate the victim, M.R., his wife, and their two minor daughters. The harassment included posting threats, insults, and personal information, escalating to threats of violence and tracking the daughters' activities. The family took significant security measures in response, including installing cameras and contacting law enforcement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Jubert's motion to dismiss the charges, rejecting his facial challenge to the statute but deferring the as-applied challenge. Jubert then pleaded guilty to the cyberstalking charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The district court sentenced him to 27 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Jubert appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and addressed two main questions: whether the statute is facially overbroad and whether Jubert's conduct qualifies as a true threat. The court concluded that the statute is not overbroad and that Jubert's conduct constituted true threats, which are not protected by the First Amendment. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) is constitutional as applied to Jubert and does not violate his right to freedom of speech. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Jubert" on Justia Law

In 2018, Marcus Delars Branson was convicted of bank robbery in Texas and sentenced to thirty-seven months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. A condition of his release was that he not possess a firearm. In March 2023, a probation officer found two firearms in Branson's apartment, leading to his indictment for possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Branson moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The district court denied his motion, and Branson pled guilty, receiving a forty-one-month prison sentence, consecutive to a twenty-four-month revocation sentence, followed by three years of supervised release.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Branson's motion to dismiss the indictment. Branson then pled guilty and was sentenced to a total of sixty-five months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. Branson appealed, presenting both preserved and unpreserved constitutional challenges.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Branson's appeal. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Branson's facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges were foreclosed by precedent, specifically United States v. Diaz and United States v. Schnur. The court also rejected Branson's Commerce Clause and Fifth Amendment challenges, citing previous rulings that had addressed similar arguments. Finally, the court found that Branson's void-for-vagueness challenge lacked merit, as § 922(g)(1) clearly defined the prohibited conduct, and Branson had fair notice that his actions were unlawful. The court reviewed the unpreserved challenges for plain error and found none. Thus, the district court's sentence was affirmed. View "USA v. Branson" on Justia Law

At approximately 2:00 a.m. on September 10, 2020, Corpus Christi Police Officers Perez and Alfaro stopped Isaac Riojas after observing him roll through a stop sign. Riojas, known to the officers from prior investigations, opened his car door and threw his keys outside. Officer Perez noticed a strong odor of marijuana and ashes on Riojas’s lap. Riojas was detained, and a search of his vehicle revealed multiple bags of synthetic cannabinoid, marijuana, and methamphetamine. Riojas was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Riojas’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that the search fell within the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. Riojas then entered an unconditional guilty plea and was sentenced to 121 months of imprisonment. He appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that an unconditional guilty plea typically waives prior non-jurisdictional challenges, including suppression rulings. However, the government did not invoke this waiver on appeal, leading the court to consider whether it must raise the waiver sua sponte. The court decided not to raise the waiver on its own motion and proceeded to review the merits of the search.The Fifth Circuit concluded that the search was lawful under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. The court held that the officers had probable cause to search Riojas’s vehicle based on the smell of marijuana, the visible ashes, and the partially smoked marijuana joint. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and upheld Riojas’s conviction and sentence. View "USA v. Riojas" on Justia Law

Anna Palova, a flight attendant for United Airlines since 1992, was terminated in February 2020 for allegedly engaging in "parking," a prohibited scheduling tactic. United Airlines claimed that Palova manipulated flight assignments, violating the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Palova, however, argued that her termination was due to age discrimination, as she and two other older flight attendants were fired while younger attendants who committed similar infractions were not.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of United Airlines. The court concluded that the Railway Labor Act (RLA) precluded Palova's Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim and preempted her Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) claim. The court reasoned that resolving Palova's claims would require interpreting the CBA, which falls outside the court's jurisdiction under the RLA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the RLA does not preclude or preempt Palova's age discrimination claims. The court found that Palova's claims of age discrimination were independent of the CBA and did not require its interpretation. The court noted that while the CBA might be referenced, it was not dispositive of the discrimination claims. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Palova v. United Airlines" on Justia Law

Joseph Lee Betancourt was convicted for firearms possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the felon-in-possession statute. The case arose when Harris County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a 911 call reporting that Betancourt had brandished a firearm during an argument. Upon searching his home, deputies found firearms, ammunition, and body armor. Betancourt had prior felony convictions for aggravated assault, which served as the predicate for his prosecution under § 922(g)(1).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Betancourt’s motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment. Betancourt entered a plea agreement, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to time served and three years of supervised release. Betancourt then appealed the district court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which requires determining if the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the regulated conduct and if the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court also referenced United States v. Rahimi, which upheld prohibitions on firearm possession by individuals posing a credible threat to safety.The Fifth Circuit held that Betancourt’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge failed. The court found that Betancourt’s aggravated assault convictions, which involved reckless driving and causing serious injuries, demonstrated that he posed a threat to public safety. The court concluded that disarming Betancourt was consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Betancourt" on Justia Law