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

Alberto Alvarado was employed through a temporary staffing agency and assigned to Jacintoport International, L.L.C. (JPI) for work as a longshoreman at the Port of Houston. On December 12, 2020, while descending a ladder into the cargo hold of the BBC Sapphire, a ship owned and operated by Briese Schiffahrts entities, Alvarado slipped due to poor lighting and condensation, falling about fifteen feet and sustaining serious injuries. Alvarado asserted that neither the ship’s crew nor JPI provided adequate warnings or instructions regarding the ladder’s condition and configuration.After the accident, Alvarado filed suit in state court against the BBC Sapphire’s owner/operator and JPI, alleging negligence and gross negligence under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The BBC Sapphire moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence of a breached duty under the LHWCA, while JPI argued that as Alvarado’s borrowing employer, its provision of workers’ compensation barred his negligence claim. The district court granted both motions for summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Alvarado failed to raise genuine disputes of material fact regarding the shipowner’s breach of the LHWCA’s turnover or active-control duties, as the hazards were either open and obvious or not under the shipowner’s active control at the relevant time. The court also concluded that JPI was Alvarado’s borrowing employer as a matter of law and, having secured workers’ compensation coverage for him, was shielded from negligence liability by the LHWCA’s exclusive-remedy provision. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of both defendants. View "Alvarado v. Briese Schiffahrts" on Justia Law

Christopher Kirchner, the founder and CEO of a Dallas-based logistics software startup, raised substantial funds from investors over several rounds of stock offerings. While some of these funds were used for legitimate business expenses, Kirchner misappropriated millions for personal use, including luxury purchases such as private jet charters and stadium suites. To secure additional investments and conceal his misuse of earlier funds, Kirchner made false statements about the company’s financial health and fabricated documents. When the company began missing payroll, he launched another unauthorized funding round and continued his pattern of deception. Eventually, internal scrutiny and investor complaints led to his suspension and termination, and the company was forced to liquidate.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas presided over Kirchner’s trial, where a jury convicted him on four counts of wire fraud and seven counts of money laundering. The district court sentenced him to 240 months in prison and issued a Presentence Report applying the money-laundering Guideline with an abuse-of-trust enhancement, resulting in a higher offense level. Kirchner appealed, arguing that the district court’s questioning of witnesses showed judicial bias, that there was insufficient evidence to support two wire fraud convictions, and that there were errors in the sentencing calculations, including the application of the abuse-of-trust enhancement and the calculation of loss amounts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that the district court’s questioning did not amount to plain error or violate due process, as its interventions were limited and the jury received proper instructions. The evidence was sufficient to support all convictions, including the challenged wire fraud counts. The court also affirmed the sentencing approach, concluding that the abuse-of-trust enhancement properly applied and that the loss calculation was reasonable. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed Kirchner’s conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Kirchner" on Justia Law

In this matter, a relator initially brought claims under the False Claims Act against a group of defendants for fraudulent conduct, later joined by the United States. After years of litigation, the district court imposed a receivership over the defendants’ assets and ultimately entered a large monetary judgment against them. The defendants satisfied the reduced judgment following an appeal, but the receivership remained active to resolve additional matters, including a claim by the Estate of Robert Johnson. Johnson had obtained a $200,000 wrongful death judgment in state court against a receivership entity and sought to intervene in the federal court to enforce the judgment, as the receivership order prevented execution in state court.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted Johnson’s motion to intervene, subsequently granting summary judgment in his favor and directing payment of the state court judgment. The defendants appealed the order granting intervention before the district court had resolved their motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment order. The district court’s intervention order was a preliminary step in addressing Johnson’s claim, not a final resolution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether it had jurisdiction over the defendants’ interlocutory appeal from the order granting intervention. Citing established precedent, the Fifth Circuit determined that orders permitting intervention are generally not immediately appealable, as they are procedural steps toward a later final judgment on the intervenor’s claim. The court concluded that the intervention order was not a final, appealable order and that the appeal was premature. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court’s holding is that an order granting intervention, when not resolving the merits of the intervenor’s claim, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. View "Johnson v. Stone County" on Justia Law

Jet Oilfield Services was formed in 2018 by three individuals, with Brian Owen later acquiring a substantial membership interest. Jet’s governing agreement required Owen to obtain consent from at least one other member before entering transactions on Jet’s behalf. In 2022, Owen signed an agreement with Spin Capital, L.L.C., under which Jet would sell $4,500,000 of future receivables for $3,000,000. Spin attempted to confirm Owen’s authority by reviewing Jet’s bank statements and tax returns, noting Owen’s access to the company’s accounts and his designation as “Partnership Representative” and “General Partner or LLC member-manager,” though the tax return was unsigned by a member-manager. Jet subsequently filed for bankruptcy, and Spin filed a proof of claim based on this agreement and pursued related litigation.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas held a trial on Jet’s counterclaims against Spin. The court found that Owen lacked both actual and apparent authority to bind Jet in the Spin Agreement and that Jet received no consideration for the contract. As a result, the bankruptcy court determined Spin’s claim was unenforceable. Spin appealed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Initially, the district court dismissed the appeal for an insufficient record but later reinstated it, allowing supplemental briefing. When Spin declined to submit further briefing, the district court dismissed the appeal with prejudice.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied clear error review to the bankruptcy court’s factual findings and de novo review to its legal conclusions. The Fifth Circuit held that Owen did not have apparent authority to bind Jet, as Jet’s member-managers did not hold him out as an agent, and Spin’s reliance on Owen’s asserted authority was unreasonable. The court thus affirmed the judgment, holding that Spin’s claim against Jet was unenforceable. View "Spin Capital v. Jet Oilfield" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident from Mexico entered the United States in 2016 and, in 2024, pleaded guilty to eight criminal offenses in New Mexico, including child abuse and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The child abuse conviction was based on an incident in which he punched a child in the lip. The aggregate sentence for all convictions was approximately 21.5 years. Following these convictions, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, alleging that his child abuse conviction qualified as a removable offense under federal law, and that the aggravated assault conviction constituted an aggravated felony.An Immigration Judge denied the petitioner’s motion to terminate the proceedings, sustaining both charges of removability. The petitioner’s counsel declined to seek any further relief from removal, reserving only the right to appeal. The Board of Immigration Appeals considered the case next, focusing on whether the New Mexico child abuse statute fit the federal definition of a removable “crime of child abuse.” Applying the categorical approach, the Board concluded that the statute matched the federal standard and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, not addressing the aggravated assault conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision. The court held that the petitioner failed to show a realistic probability that New Mexico would apply its child abuse statute in a way broader than the federal definition. The court also determined that the petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, regardless of whether his aggravated assault conviction constituted an aggravated felony, because he had multiple convictions with aggregate sentences exceeding five years within seven years of his admission as a permanent resident. Finding no basis for remand or relief, the Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Santiago v. Bondi" on Justia Law

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