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

In June 2021, Ulysses Rubalcava was discovered by his then-wife in the act of sexually abusing his eleven-year-old stepdaughter. A search of Rubalcava’s cellphone revealed numerous images and videos documenting his sexual abuse of both his eight-year-old daughter and his stepdaughter. Both children reported that the abuse had occurred over several years and involved physical and psychological harm, including being forced to watch pornographic videos and recordings of their own abuse. Law enforcement found nearly two hundred images and one video on Rubalcava’s devices that depicted these acts.Rubalcava was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on one count of possessing child pornography and two counts of sexual exploitation of children. He pleaded guilty to all charges without a plea agreement. The Presentence Investigation Report calculated an offense level of 50, which was reduced to 43 under the sentencing guidelines. With a criminal history category of I, Rubalcava faced a guidelines range of life imprisonment, capped by statutory maximums. The report also detailed his financial resources, including a residence, a vehicle, and a special needs trust.The district court sentenced Rubalcava to concurrent prison terms of 240 and 360 months, imposed restitution of $10,000, and assessed $45,300 in criminal monetary penalties, including a $30,000 special assessment under the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act. Rubalcava appealed, challenging the restitution order, the AVAA assessment, several sentencing enhancements, and the guidelines calculation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the restitution award was supported by reasonable evidence, the AVAA assessment properly considered Rubalcava’s financial resources including his home and trust, and the sentencing enhancements and guidelines calculation were correctly applied or, alternatively, any error was harmless given the statutory maximums. View "USA v. Rubalcava" on Justia Law

In 2009, an individual was convicted of receiving child pornography and sentenced to 210 months in prison, followed by a life term of supervised release with specified conditions. After modifications to these conditions, the individual began serving supervised release. In October 2024, a probation officer alleged violations of the release conditions, to which the individual admitted certain allegations. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas revoked supervised release, imposed a 36-month prison term, and reimposed a life term of supervised release. At the revocation hearing, the court orally imposed “the same conditions of release previously imposed and not yet completed.” However, the written judgment incorporated additional discretionary conditions by reference to a district-wide standing order, including a new requirement that the defendant obtain full-time employment of at least thirty hours per week.The defendant appealed the new, unpronounced discretionary conditions in the written judgment that were not mentioned during the oral pronouncement at sentencing. Both parties agreed that the new full-time employment requirement imposed a greater burden than the prior conditions and conflicted with what was orally pronounced, but disagreed on whether duplicative conditions also needed to be removed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that any discretionary condition in a written judgment that conflicts with the oral pronouncement at sentencing must be excised on remand. The court found that the full-time employment requirement conflicted with the oral pronouncement and must be deleted. However, duplicative discretionary conditions that did not broaden the restrictions or requirements could be preserved. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit vacated part of the sentence and remanded the case, instructing the district court to amend the written judgment to conform with the oral pronouncement. View "United States v. Currier" on Justia Law

Detectives sought to arrest an individual based on an outstanding warrant and observed him near a corner store. When approached, he fled and discarded a loaded firearm into a bush. Upon apprehension, officers recovered the firearm and found five rocks of crack cocaine and $94 on his person. The individual had multiple prior felony convictions under Louisiana law, including attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, aggravated flight from an officer, possession of heroin, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and aggravated battery. He pled guilty to knowingly possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana sentenced him to 70 months of incarceration and three years of supervised release. The court applied a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), finding that he possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense, specifically drug trafficking, based on the quantity of crack cocaine and circumstances of his arrest. The defendant objected, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the enhancement, but the district court overruled the objection and adopted the Presentence Investigation Report.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed his facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), as well as the application of the sentencing enhancement. The court held that existing precedent foreclosed his Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1). Additionally, the Fifth Circuit concluded the district court did not clearly err in applying the four-level enhancement, determining that the record plausibly supported a finding that he possessed the firearm in connection with drug trafficking. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed both the conviction and the sentence. View "USA v. McCree" on Justia Law

On the night of November 29, 2021, a Hattiesburg police officer conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle due to a defective tag light. The driver, unable to provide identification or insurance, was asked to exit the car. During a protective pat-down, the officer discovered a concealed firearm on the driver, who initially denied its presence. The officer then approached the passenger, Andrew Ducksworth, who stated he was paralyzed from the waist down. After requesting Ducksworth to raise his hands and initiating a pat-down, the officer felt a hard object between Ducksworth’s legs, which Ducksworth denied was a firearm. Upon further investigation and backup, officers found a loaded firearm in Ducksworth’s possession and learned he was a convicted felon.Ducksworth was charged in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to suppress the firearm, arguing the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the pat-down, and also moved to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds. After a hearing, with officer testimony and corroborating body- and dash-cam footage, the district court denied both motions. At a bench trial, Ducksworth stipulated to all elements of the offense, presented no evidence, was found guilty, and sentenced to thirty-six months in prison and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of the motions and the sufficiency of the evidence. The court held that, considering the totality of the circumstances—including the driver’s possession and concealment of a firearm, the high-crime area, and the officer’s safety concerns—there was reasonable suspicion for the pat-down. The court also held that Ducksworth’s stipulation satisfied the statutory element of a prior felony conviction and rejected his constitutional challenges, affirming the district court’s judgment in full. View "United States v. Ducksworth" on Justia Law

Federal agents investigated a drug trafficking organization operating in eastern Texas and identified Rodney Ignacio Castro as the cocaine supplier. Castro was linked to an apartment in downtown Houston. When law enforcement executed a search warrant at this apartment, they discovered $1,050,860 in cash, jewelry worth roughly $250,000, and an unloaded gold-plated handgun stored in a closet. Castro admitted these valuables were proceeds from his drug trafficking, that he possessed the handgun, and that he used the apartment in furtherance of drug trafficking activities.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas received a presentence report finding Castro responsible for 39.05 kilograms of cocaine and recommended two sentencing enhancements: one for possession of a dangerous weapon under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), and another for maintaining a premises for drug distribution under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12). Castro objected, arguing there was no evidence of drugs or drug paraphernalia in the apartment and the firearm was not stored with such items. The district court overruled both objections, reasoning the proximity of the handgun to drug proceeds and Castro’s own admissions supported the enhancements. The court sentenced Castro to 210 months in prison and noted it would have imposed the same sentence even if the guideline range was calculated differently.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error. The Fifth Circuit held that the firearm enhancement was justified by the temporal and spatial relation between the weapon, proceeds, and defendant, and that storing drug proceeds in the apartment constituted a principal use for drug distribution purposes. The appellate court found no clear error and affirmed Castro’s sentence. View "USA v. Castro" on Justia Law

Ahmadou entered the United States from Niger in 2016 under an F1 student visa. In 2021, he visited a Texas gun range, rented and fired guns, and completed a waiver form that did not list his visa status as a prohibited category for firearm possession under federal law. Investigators connected Ahmadou to an Islamic extremist involved in a 2020 attack, and a search of Ahmadou’s devices revealed extensive ISIS propaganda. Undercover agents were present during his visits, but did not instruct the gun range staff to act differently. Ahmadou was later arrested and admitted his gun range visits were in preparation for potential jihad overseas.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Ahmadou moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing he was entitled to the defense of entrapment by estoppel based on alleged misrepresentation by the gun range’s waiver form. The district judge denied his motion, excluded evidence of the defense, and refused his proposed jury instruction. After trial, a jury found Ahmadou guilty on all counts. At sentencing, the court denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and declined to apply the terrorism enhancement, but imposed an above-guidelines sentence, citing Ahmadou’s conduct and associations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. It held that entrapment by estoppel did not apply because the gun range’s waiver form was not an affirmative misrepresentation, and the firearms dealer was not a federal official or agent for purposes of the defense. The Fifth Circuit also found that denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction was not clearly erroneous, and the above-guidelines sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable, as it was based on permissible considerations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). View "USA v. Ahmadou" on Justia Law

Bridgelink Engineering LLC, managed by two individuals, entered into a loan agreement with two banks in August 2021. The loans, totaling $34 million, were initially guaranteed by several LLCs also managed by the same individuals. A few months later, the individuals personally guaranteed Bridgelink’s loan obligations, with a guaranty agreement containing an early-release clause. This clause allowed the individuals to be released from liability if specific conditions were met, including the borrower’s loan being in good standing and compliance with financial covenants for two consecutive quarters. After a default in July 2022, the banks and Bridgelink amended the agreement, but Bridgelink later failed to meet the conditions for waiver of default and remained in default into 2023. Neither Bridgelink nor its guarantors made payments on the loans.The banks sued Bridgelink, the individuals, and the LLCs for breach of contract in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The individuals argued they had satisfied the guaranty’s early release conditions, and later challenged the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, contending that one of the banks was a Texas citizen, which would destroy diversity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed both the jurisdictional challenge and the merits. The appellate court held that complete diversity existed as the banks and all defendants were citizens of different states, confirming the district court’s jurisdiction. The court further held that the individuals had not satisfied the conditions for early release from their guaranty obligations because the borrower’s loan was in default and the required confirmations of compliance were not provided for two consecutive quarters. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment holding the individuals liable as guarantors for the loans. View "Cadence Bank v. Johnson" on Justia Law

An elementary school student with autism, intellectual disability, and a speech impediment exhibited severe behavioral issues, including frequent elopement from school and toileting problems, which impeded his academic and social development. The student communicated primarily through gestures and a specialized iPad, and his academic performance lagged significantly behind grade level. The school district developed an individualized education program (IEP) that included special classes, therapy, and behavioral interventions. While the IEP initially included a limited extended-school-year (ESY) program to combat regression over breaks, the student continued to regress, particularly after school vacations, resulting in dangerous incidents and increasing parental concern.After disagreements arose regarding the adequacy of summer ESY services, the student’s parent requested a due process hearing, seeking more robust ESY support and additional accommodations. The hearing officer found that the school district had failed to provide a free appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ordering full-summer ESY services and year-round access to a communication device. The school district appealed the decision to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, which upheld the hearing officer’s findings, determining that the IEP was not sufficiently individualized and did not adequately address the student’s behavioral regression.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in finding the IEP deficient under IDEA standards. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the IEP was insufficiently individualized given the student’s severe behavioral regression and that the educational benefits provided—while academically positive—were outweighed by the failure to address nonacademic, safety-critical needs. The court concluded that the school district’s refusal to provide more effective ESY services denied the student an IDEA-appropriate education. View "North East Independent School District v. I.M." on Justia Law

Kevin LaMarcus Mitchell, who has a history of criminal conduct, was previously convicted of being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a felony offense. Years later, during the execution of an unrelated arrest warrant, law enforcement found firearms in the room he occupied and Mitchell admitted to daily marijuana use. Based on his prior § 922(g)(3) conviction, Mitchell was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi for being a felon in possession of a firearm under § 922(g)(1).After his indictment, Mitchell moved to dismiss the charge on several constitutional grounds, including an as-applied Second Amendment challenge in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. The district court denied his motion, after which Mitchell entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the Second Amendment issue. He was sentenced to sixty-four months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that, under Bruen and its own precedent, the Second Amendment’s plain text covers Mitchell’s conduct and that the only relevant predicate offense for an as-applied challenge is his prior § 922(g)(3) conviction. The court found that the government failed to identify a historical tradition justifying permanent disarmament of individuals with a predicate offense based solely on habitual marijuana use, in the absence of evidence of active intoxication while possessing a firearm. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit ruled that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Mitchell’s predicate offense, reversed the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss, and vacated the judgment of conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), an American technology services provider, licensed two insurance software platforms, Vantage and CyberLife, to Transamerica, an insurance company. Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), a technology consulting firm, was later engaged by Transamerica as a third-party consultant to maintain CSC’s platforms. CSC and Transamerica signed a Third-Party Addendum allowing TCS access to CSC’s software “solely for the benefit” of Transamerica. During this period, TCS sought to develop its own insurance platform, BaNCS, and won a $2.6 billion contract to transition Transamerica’s business to BaNCS. Evidence arose that TCS used CSC’s confidential information, including source code and technical manuals, for its BaNCS development, prompting CSC to allege trade secret misappropriation when a CSC employee discovered TCS sharing proprietary materials internally.CSC sued TCS in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). After an eight-day trial with an advisory jury, the jury found in favor of CSC, recommending substantial damages. The district court found TCS liable, awarding CSC $56 million in compensatory damages (based on unjust enrichment), $112 million in exemplary damages, and imposing a permanent injunction barring TCS’s use of CSC’s trade secrets and BaNCS versions developed with misappropriated material.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings that TCS’s use was unauthorized under the relevant contracts and that TCS had the requisite mens rea, including willful and malicious misappropriation. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the damages awards and the exemplary damages ratio. However, the court vacated the injunction in part, remanding for the district court to revise it: the injunction’s prohibition on TCS’s future use of BaNCS material developed post-misappropriation was found duplicative of the damages, and the definition of parties bound by the injunction was ordered to be clarified in line with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2). View "Computer Sciences v. Tata Consultancy" on Justia Law