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

Two defendants, Arturo Cuellar ("AC") and Ricardo Quintanilla, were involved in a scheme to bribe city commissioners in Weslaco, Texas, to secure contracts for an infrastructure project. The bribes were intended to influence the awarding of contracts to Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) and Briones Consulting and Engineering, Ltd. Quintanilla bribed Commissioner Gerardo Tafolla, while AC bribed Commissioner John Cuellar (JC). Leo Lopez, a consultant for CDM and Briones, facilitated the bribes. The scheme involved multiple meetings and payments, with both commissioners taking actions to favor CDM and Briones. The city paid approximately $42.5 million to CDM, Briones, and LeFevre, with Lopez distributing funds to AC and Quintanilla.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas convicted Quintanilla and AC of various federal offenses, including conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud, honest-services wire fraud, federal program bribery, conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, and money laundering. Quintanilla was sentenced to 200 months in custody, while AC received 240 months. Both were also ordered to pay fines, special assessments, restitution, and forfeiture amounts. The defendants appealed their convictions and sentences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the convictions and sentences. The court addressed several issues raised by the defendants, including claims of constructive amendment of the indictment, sufficiency of the indictment, recusal of the district judge, and evidentiary rulings. The court found that the government did not constructively amend the indictment and that the evidence supported the convictions. The court also held that the district judge did not need to recuse herself and that the evidentiary rulings were within the court's discretion. The court concluded that the defendants' arguments were either forfeited, not meritorious, or both. View "USA v. Quintanilla" on Justia Law

Juan Jose Paramo, the defendant-appellant, is involved in a legal dispute with Banco Mercantil de Norte, S.A. and Arrendadora y Factor Banorte, S.A. de C.V. (the Banorte Parties). The Banorte Parties allege that Paramo committed large-scale fraud in Mexico and fled to the United States. They are pursuing a civil lawsuit in Mexico and sought discovery in the U.S. under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to locate and seize Paramo’s assets. The Banorte Parties filed an ex parte request for discovery assistance, which the district court granted, authorizing subpoenas for Paramo and two other individuals.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the Banorte Parties' petition and authorized the subpoenas. Paramo filed a motion to quash the subpoenas, arguing that the discovery request was overly broad and that the Intel factors favored him. The district court denied Paramo’s motion in a brief order without waiting for his reply or holding a hearing. Paramo appealed the decision, arguing that the district court failed to provide reasoning for its denial and violated local rules by not allowing him to file a reply.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide any reasoning for its decision to deny Paramo’s motion to quash. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that district courts must explain their decisions when granting or denying motions to quash § 1782 subpoenas to allow for effective appellate review. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to provide a reasoned decision. The court did not address the substantive arguments regarding the Intel factors or the scope of the discovery request. View "Banco Mercantil de Norte, S.A. v. Paramo" on Justia Law

Paola Connelly, a non-violent marijuana user, was charged after El Paso police responded to a "shots fired" call at her home. Her husband, John, was found firing a shotgun at a neighbor's door and was arrested. Paola admitted to occasionally using marijuana for sleep and anxiety. A search of their home revealed drug paraphernalia and several firearms, including a pistol owned by Paola. She was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possessing firearms as an unlawful user of a controlled substance and 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3) for providing firearms to an unlawful user.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied Paola's motion to dismiss the charges. However, after the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Rahimi, the District Court reconsidered and found that §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3) were facially unconstitutional and that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied to Paola under the Second Amendment. The government appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that while historical and traditional regulations may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person's right to carry a weapon, they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage. The court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the charges against Paola as applied to her but reversed the facial challenges to §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3). The court concluded that there are circumstances where these statutes could be constitutionally applied, such as banning presently intoxicated individuals from carrying firearms. View "United States v. Connelly" on Justia Law

A 28-year-old man, Steven Mitchell Qualls, died in police custody from a methamphetamine overdose. Qualls had been taken to a hospital for chest pains and agitation but was arrested for public intoxication after refusing to leave. He was booked into the Jasper City Jail, where his condition worsened. Despite showing signs of severe distress, including vomiting black liquid and screaming in pain, officers did not seek medical help. Qualls died approximately 33 hours after being booked.Qualls’s mother, Frances E. Sims, sued the City of Jasper and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to Qualls’s serious medical needs in violation of the 14th Amendment. The district court dismissed claims against one officer and the city but denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds for the remaining officers. Sims then moved to bifurcate the trial into separate liability and damages phases, arguing that evidence of Qualls’s past behavior would unfairly prejudice the jury. The district court denied the motion, and the jury found for the defendants. Sims’s motion for a new trial was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to bifurcate the trial. The court reasoned that the evidence of Qualls’s past behavior was relevant to the officers’ defense, as it could show they did not recognize the severity of his condition. The court also found that standard trial practices, such as objections and limiting instructions, could mitigate any potential prejudice. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment and the denial of a new trial. View "Sims v. City of Jasper" on Justia Law

A man who has lived in the United States for thirty years, married to a U.S. citizen and father to U.S. citizens, has been attempting to adjust his immigration status for seventeen years. His third application was denied in 2021 due to the use of an incorrect birthdate, which was deemed to constitute fraud. The man sought review in district court, which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. He then appealed this decision.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the case, stating that decisions regarding the adjustment of status and waivers of inadmissibility are within the discretion of USCIS and are not subject to judicial review. The court cited 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) and § 1182(i)(2), which preclude judicial review of such discretionary decisions.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 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review of denials of applications for adjustment of status and waivers of inadmissibility, regardless of whether the judgment is made in removal proceedings. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Patel v. Garland, which interpreted the statute to broadly preclude judicial review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief under § 1255. The court acknowledged the potential for governmental errors but concluded that the statutory language clearly barred judicial review in this context. View "Momin v. Jaddou" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Guillermo Gray, sued Killick Group, L.L.C. for wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Gray, an experienced welding and coding inspector, performed inspection services for Killick on a project-by-project basis through his own company, Veritas Inspectors, Inc. He used his own equipment and submitted invoices under his business name. In a previous criminal court proceeding, Gray had sworn that he was self-employed to obtain an essential-need license after a DWI conviction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment to Killick, holding that Gray was judicially estopped from claiming employee status under the FLSA due to his prior sworn statement of being self-employed. The court also dismissed Gray’s breach of contract and quantum meruit claims. Gray appealed, seeking reversal only on the FLSA claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court reviewed the use of judicial estoppel for abuse of discretion and found that Gray’s previous self-employed statement was inconsistent with his current claim of being an employee. However, the court chose to resolve the appeal by determining whether Gray was an employee under the FLSA. Applying the economic-realities test, the court concluded that Gray was an independent contractor. The court considered factors such as Gray’s control over his work, his investment in his business, his ability to profit, the skill required for his job, and the project-based nature of his work. All factors supported the conclusion that Gray was not economically dependent on Killick and was thus an independent contractor, not an employee under the FLSA. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Killick. View "Gray v. Killick Group" on Justia Law

Christopher Wooten was arrested in February 2016 for driving while intoxicated (DWI) with a blood alcohol level of .265. Due to his prior DWI convictions, he was charged with felony DWI under Texas law, which escalates penalties for repeat offenders. Wooten had a history of DWI and other felony convictions, including a 1983 DWI for which he received a probationary sentence. This 1983 DWI was used as an element of the 2016 felony DWI charge, and his other felonies were used to justify a habitual offender enhancement, leading to a potential sentence of twenty-five years to life in prison.Wooten initially agreed to plead guilty in exchange for an eight-year sentence, but the state trial judge rejected this agreement. He then agreed to a thirteen-year sentence and waived one of the felony enhancements. Despite this, Wooten attempted to appeal, but the state appellate court dismissed his appeal due to the waiver in his plea agreement. Wooten filed multiple state habeas applications, all of which were denied. He also filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court denied, finding that his claims could not overcome the relitigation bar under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of Wooten's habeas petition. The court held that any error by the state court in using the 1983 DWI as an element of the felony DWI charge was harmless because Wooten had other felony convictions that could have satisfied the requirements for the felony DWI and habitual offender enhancement. The court also found that Wooten's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and that his ineffective assistance of counsel claim did not warrant relief because he failed to show that he would not have pleaded guilty if his counsel had advised him differently. View "Wooten v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Jose Paz Medina-Cantu was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition as an illegal alien, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2), and illegal reentry into the United States, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He moved to dismiss the firearm possession charge, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. The district court denied his motion, referencing the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Portillo-Munoz, which held that the Second Amendment does not extend to illegal aliens.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Medina-Cantu’s motion to dismiss, holding that Bruen did not abrogate the precedent set by Portillo-Munoz. Medina-Cantu then pleaded guilty to both counts without a plea agreement but preserved his constitutional argument for appeal. He was sentenced to fifteen months of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. Medina-Cantu argued that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bruen and United States v. Rahimi abrogated Portillo-Munoz. However, the Fifth Circuit held that neither Bruen nor Rahimi unequivocally overruled Portillo-Munoz. The court emphasized that under its rule of orderliness, it could not overturn another panel’s decision unless there was an unequivocal change in the law by the Supreme Court or an en banc decision. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) under the Second Amendment. View "USA v. Medina-Cantu" on Justia Law

Curtis Terrell, after consuming a significant amount of alcohol, pain pills, and methamphetamine, began running erratically in a residential neighborhood. His wife, Angela Terrell, called 911, requesting an ambulance. Officer Jason Allgrunn arrived and arrested Mr. Terrell. When Mrs. Terrell began filming the incident, she was also arrested. The Terrells filed multiple federal and state claims against Allgrunn and other officers involved.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, rejecting their qualified immunity defense. The defendants appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment for the defendants on the Terrells' false arrest claims, finding that Officer Allgrunn had probable cause to arrest both Mr. and Mrs. Terrell. The court also reversed the denial of summary judgment on Mrs. Terrell's excessive force claim, concluding that there was no clearly established law prohibiting the officer's conduct. However, the court dismissed the appeal regarding Mr. Terrell's excessive force claim for lack of jurisdiction, as there were genuine disputes of material fact about what occurred when Mr. Terrell was out of the video frame.Additionally, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment on the Terrells' malicious prosecution and First Amendment retaliation claims, citing the presence of probable cause. The court also reversed the denial of summary judgment for Officers Henderson and Banta on the failure-to-intervene claims, as there were no violations of clearly established constitutional law.Finally, the court vacated the district court's denial of summary judgment on the Louisiana state law claims and remanded for reconsideration in light of the appellate court's opinion. View "Terrell v. Allgrunn" on Justia Law

The case involves a long-standing litigation concerning the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office and the conditions at Orleans Parish Prison. Plaintiffs, including detainees and the United States, argued that the jail provided constitutionally inadequate housing and medical care. In 2013, a district court approved a consent decree to address these issues, which included a plan to construct a mental health annex, known as Phase III. Despite years of delays, the district court ordered the construction to proceed. No party appealed these orders at the time.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana oversaw the case initially. In 2016, the parties entered a stipulated order to develop a plan for appropriate housing for prisoners with mental health issues. The Compliance Director later proposed the construction of Phase III, which was agreed upon by the former Sheriff and the City. However, the City later sought to explore alternatives, leading to further court orders in 2019 to proceed with Phase III. The City’s subsequent motion to halt the project was denied, and this decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Anderson v. City of New Orleans.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is currently reviewing the case. The new Sheriff, Susan Hutson, moved to terminate all orders concerning Phase III, arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) prohibits the construction of a new jail facility. The district court denied this motion, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that it could review the denial of the motion but not the underlying orders, as the Sheriff’s motion was not a proper procedural mechanism under the PLRA to challenge the 2019 Orders and Stipulated Order. The appeal was dismissed, and the construction of Phase III continues. View "Anderson v. Hutson" on Justia Law