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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' 8 U.S.C. 1503 claim and motion to reinstate or refile the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims.The court held that plaintiffs forfeited their claim that the time bar in Gonzalez v. Limon, 926 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 2019), should not apply and that the APA claims should be restored because section 1503 is not an adequate remedy for the denial of their visas. The court has previously held that section 1503 supplied "an adequate alternative remedy" for challenges to failed passport applications, and the fact that plaintiffs allowed the limitations period to run does not make section 1503 inadequate. Therefore, plaintiffs' section 1503 claim is time-barred under Gonzalez and the district court properly dismissed it; the time bar did not make plaintiffs' section 1503 remedy inadequate and hence did not require the district court to reinstate the APA claims; and because the APA claims would not have survived a renewed motion to dismiss, any amendment to the complaint would have been futile. View "Martinez v. Pompeo" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted a petition for mandamus filed by HC Operating, LP. Purchasers filed two Notices of Lis Pendens, in Denton County and Dallas County real property records; sellers moved to expunge the Notices, followed by related pleadings, which were forwarded to a magistrate judge for recommendations; and the magistrate judge issued findings, conclusions and recommendations denying relief, and the district court accepted his recommendations. Consequently, the district court denied Motions to Expunge Lis Pendens Notices, and Motions to Cancel the notices.The court held that allowing the Purchasers to maintain the notices of lis pendens filed in this case was based on clear and indisputable errors of fact and law; the Sellers have no other adequate means of seeking redress than by issuance of this writ; and mandamus is "appropriate under the circumstances." In this case, the district court misread the governing acquisition documents, misapprehended Texas law regarding notices of lis pendens, misapplied the facts to the law, and therefore acquiesced in a gross abuse by Purchasers of state lis pendens law. View "In Re: Huffines Retail Partners, LP" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court held that the district court did not err in making its decision about drug quantity for purposes of determining the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. The court also held that, because the district court's statements show that the sentence was not based on the guidelines range and that the district court would have imposed the same sentence without the alleged error for the same reasons, any error in imposing the two-level enhancement for abuse of position of trust is harmless. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. View "United States v. Leontaritis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Because defendant's arguments for plea withdrawal—particularly his argument that his plea was not given knowingly and voluntarily—derive from his claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the court chose to address the merits of the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his plea.The court considered the Carr factors and the totality of the circumstances, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Given defendant's consistent, repeated statements in court affirming that he understood the required elements of his charge up until the time of his plea withdrawal motion, the court found that the district court did not err in determining that the record did not support defendant's assertion that he was unaware of the "knowingly possessed" element of his offense. Furthermore, the record supports the conclusion that counsel was available to defendant throughout the proceedings; defendant's original plea was knowing and voluntary; defendant delayed in filing his motion to withdraw; and the government would suffer prejudice if the withdrawal motion were granted. View "United States v. Strother" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 37 month sentence imposed following the revocation of his second term of supervised release. The court held that defendant's sentence did not violate the terms of his plea agreement where the plea agreement did not include any agreement regarding the prison term that could be imposed upon revocation of a second term of supervised release.The court also held that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court properly considered the sentencing factors of deterrence and protection of the public, and the sentence was imposed to punish defendant's breach of trust for violating his conditions of supervised release, which was separate and distinct from the sentence imposed for his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court further held that defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable where the district court's statement of reasons, although brief, was legally sufficient. Finally, the court rejected defendant's challenges to the timing of his revocation hearing. View "United States v. Napper" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and 600 month sentence for sex trafficking a 14 year old girl across state lines. The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence collected from his cell phone where the motion was devoid of facts that would justify relief and he did not have a concomitant right to a lawyered suppression hearing. The court also held that defendant's procedural and substantive challenges to his sentence are meritless. In this case, the rule of lenity does not apply; there was no error in denying a reduction to defendant's offense level for acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1(a); there was no error, much less an abuse of discretion, in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea; and the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(c) factors and did not abuse its discretion by sentencing defendant to 600 months in prison. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Texas answered the Fifth Circuit's question and held that a transferee on inquiry notice of fraud cannot shield itself from the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act's (TUFTA) clawback provision without diligently investigating its initial suspicions of fraud—irrespective of whether a hypothetical investigation would reveal fraudulent conduct. Having received the answer from the Supreme Court of Texas, the court once again held that defendants' good faith defense must fail.The court reversed the district court's judgment in favor of the Magness Parties, holding that the record does not show that they accepted the fraudulent transfers in good faith; neither of the cited statements at issue demonstrate that the Parties diligently investigated their initial suspicions of the Stanford International Bank's Ponzi scheme on inquiry notice; the Parties have not shown that the Seventh Amendment or due process requires the court to remand for another jury trial; and the Parties have not demonstrated that, as a matter of law, the court cannot render a decision in favor of the Receiver based on the existing record. View "Janvey v. GMAG, LLC" on Justia Law

After their twenty-two month old son suffered terrible injuries by ingesting eight Buckyball magnets, plaintiffs filed suit against M&O for manufacturing and distributing Buckyball magnets in the United States. The jury returned a verdict for M&O and plaintiffs moved for a new trial and for relief from judgment, which the district court denied.The Fifth Circuit affirmed and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that its evidentiary rulings constituted prejudicial error. In this case, the district court did not commit prejudicial error by granting the motion in limine and otherwise excluding post-sale evidence at trial. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motion to set aside the final judgment where plaintiffs failed to proffer bias evidence. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in denying plaintiffs' request for a preemption jury instruction. View "Jordan v. Maxfield & Oberton Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to marijuana trafficking offenses. Defendant received two concurrent, within Guidelines sentences of 27 months. The court held that the district court did not reversibly err in denying a sentencing adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1(a). Even without considering defendant's pretrial release violations, the court concluded that his driving while intoxicated supports the district court's decision. The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Hinojosa-Almance" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring with intent to distribute cocaine. The court held that defendant was aware of his sentencing exposure and would have pleaded guilty regardless of any error in the district court's admonishment; the forfeiture order must stand in spite of the district court's procedural shortcomings; and the district court did not clearly err in imposing a leadership-role adjustment under USSG 3B1.1(b) and in denying defendant an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1(a). However, the court remanded for the district court to determine whether the condition of supervised release imposed in his judgment is consistent with the court's oral pronouncement at sentencing. View "United States v. Omigie" on Justia Law