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

Anthology, Inc. entered into a 10-year contract with Tarrant County College District (TCCD) in June 2022 to provide Enterprise Resource Planning products and services for approximately $42 million, plus annual fees. In October 2023, TCCD terminated the contract without cause, as permitted by the contract, but refused to pay the early termination fee and demanded a refund of about $1.7 million already paid. Anthology sued TCCD in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking a declaratory judgment and damages for breach of contract.TCCD moved to dismiss the case under Federal Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing four grounds: entitlement to immunity from suit under Texas law, state sovereign immunity, lack of diversity jurisdiction, and a statutory bar on recovering damages under Texas law. The district court granted TCCD’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion, dismissing Anthology’s claims without prejudice, based on TCCD’s entitlement to immunity from suit under Texas law, without addressing the other grounds for dismissal. Anthology appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its decision. The appellate court held that state-law immunity cannot limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, which is defined by the Constitution and Congress. Therefore, the district court should not have dismissed the case based on state-law immunity without first addressing the jurisdictional issues of state sovereign immunity and the absence of complete diversity. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Anthology v. Tarrant County College District" on Justia Law

Customs and Border Protection officers seized a tractor-trailer at the Columbia Solidarity Bridge Port of Entry in Laredo, Texas, which was carrying liquid methamphetamine concealed in the fuel tanks. Noe de Jesus Martinez-Montelongo was driving the vehicle, and Fidel Saldana Rodriguez was the passenger. Both were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to import and importation of methamphetamine. Saldana challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions, while Martinez-Montelongo challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied both defendants' motions for judgment of acquittal and sentenced them to 235 months of imprisonment each. Saldana argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to prove he knew about the methamphetamine, while Martinez-Montelongo argued that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court improperly considered his failure to admit guilt.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Saldana's sufficiency challenge de novo and found that the evidence, including inconsistent statements, the use of a stick to measure fuel levels, and WhatsApp messages, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Saldana knowingly participated in the conspiracy. The court affirmed Saldana's convictions.Regarding Martinez-Montelongo's sentence, the court found that the district court did not rely on his lack of remorse in its § 3553(a) analysis. The district court's references to the defendants' insistence on innocence were to explain why they were being sentenced and why they were not eligible for certain sentencing reductions. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed Martinez-Montelongo's sentence. View "United States v. Martinez-Montelongo" on Justia Law

Roy Lee Jones, Jr. was involved in a methamphetamine-trafficking organization in North-Central Louisiana. He received large shipments of methamphetamine from his California-based supplier, DeLewis Johnson IV, and redistributed them to Willie Todd Harris, who then sold them to street-level dealers. After a ten-month investigation, federal law enforcement initiated grand jury proceedings, resulting in a five-count indictment. Jones was charged under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.Jones and Johnson were tried as co-defendants and convicted by a jury. The initial presentence report (PSR) calculated Jones' offense level as 37, recommending a Guidelines range of 210-262 months. The district court sentenced Jones to 210 months' imprisonment. Jones appealed his conviction and sentence, which were affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court denied Jones' petition for a writ of certiorari.Jones filed a motion for a sentence reduction under Amendments 821 and 825 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion, finding that Jones was ineligible for a reduction under USSG § 4C1.1(a)(10) because he had received an aggravating role enhancement under § 3B1.1 and had engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 848.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion, its interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error. The court held that either receiving a § 3B1.1 adjustment or engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise is sufficient to disqualify a defendant from a sentence reduction under § 4C1.1(a)(10). Since Jones received an aggravating role enhancement, he was ineligible for a reduction. The court affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Trinity Energy Services, L.L.C. ("Trinity Energy") and Southeast Directional Drilling, L.L.C. ("Southeast Drilling") were involved in a subcontract for constructing natural gas pipelines. Disputes arose over liability for "stand-by costs" incurred during construction delays. The parties agreed to arbitration, where a panel awarded Southeast Drilling $1,662,000 in stand-by costs from Trinity Energy. Trinity Energy petitioned to vacate the arbitration award, but the district court denied the petition and confirmed the award. Trinity Energy then appealed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas initially denied Trinity Energy's petition to vacate the arbitration award and granted Southeast Drilling's motion to confirm it. Trinity Energy appealed this decision, but the appeal was dismissed as interlocutory by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Subsequently, the district court granted Southeast Drilling's cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, leading to Trinity Energy's timely appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court's order de novo and emphasized the narrow and deferential standard of review for arbitration awards. The court found that the arbitration panel had construed the subcontract and based its decision on its terms, thus not exceeding its authority under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). The court also rejected Trinity Energy's argument that the panel manifestly disregarded Texas law, noting that "manifest disregard of the law" is not a valid ground for vacatur under the Federal Arbitration Act. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment confirming the arbitration award. Southeast Drilling's request for sanctions against Trinity Energy was denied due to procedural deficiencies. View "Trinity Energy Services v. SE Directional Drilling" on Justia Law

Ryan Rose, an electrical technician, sued Nissan North America, Inc. after suffering an electric shock while working at Nissan’s plant in Canton, Mississippi. Rose was employed by Automated Power, Inc., an electrical engineering firm hired by Nissan to repair damaged equipment following an electrical fault. Rose was injured while working in the plant’s A-B tiebreaker cubicle, which he believed was de-energized. However, the cubicle was still energized on one side, leading to his injury.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment in favor of Nissan. The court found that Automated Power was an independent contractor and that both Automated Power and Rose knew or should have known about the dangers associated with the work. Under Mississippi law, a premises owner is not liable for injuries to an independent contractor or its employees resulting from known dangers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Automated Power was indeed an independent contractor and that the company and Rose were aware of the potential dangers. The court concluded that Mississippi Code § 11-1-66 shielded Nissan from liability, as the statute exempts premises owners from liability for injuries to independent contractors or their employees resulting from known dangers. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Automated Power’s knowledge of the danger, thus affirming the summary judgment in favor of Nissan. View "Rose v. Nissan North America" on Justia Law

Defendants Louis Age Jr., Louis Age III, Stanton Guillory, and Ronald Wilson were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for their roles in the murder-for-hire of Milton Womack, a federal witness in a healthcare fraud case. The defendants raised ten issues on appeal, including challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, and the jury selection process.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana convicted the defendants on multiple counts, including conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire, murder-for-hire, conspiracy to tamper with a federal witness, and witness tampering. The district court sentenced each defendant to at least one term of life imprisonment. The defendants appealed their convictions and sentences, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions and that the district court made several errors in admitting evidence and instructing the jury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found no error in the district court's rulings. The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence related to the defendants' prior criminal activities and in denying the defendants' motions to sever their trials. Additionally, the court held that the district court did not err in its jury instructions or in its handling of the jury selection process.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the defendants' convictions and sentences. The court concluded that the defendants' arguments on appeal were unpersuasive and that the district court had acted within its discretion in its rulings. View "United States v. Age" on Justia Law

Mark Eugene Ricks, a Texas state prisoner, filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against employees of the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. Ricks claimed that he was denied treatment for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) based on nonmedical reasons and that the TDCJ HCV Policy was the driving force behind this unconstitutional denial of treatment. He sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as damages.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Ricks's complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that his allegations did not support a claim for deliberate indifference. The district court also denied Ricks's motion for appointment of counsel. Ricks filed a timely appeal, and the district court denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and found that the district court erred in dismissing Ricks's complaint without allowing him an opportunity to amend his pleadings. The appellate court held that Ricks's allegations, when liberally construed, could potentially raise a viable claim of deliberate indifference. The court also found that the district court abused its discretion in denying Ricks's motion for appointment of counsel without considering the relevant factors set out in Ulmer v. Chancellor.The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's orders granting the motion to dismiss and denying the appointment of counsel. The case was remanded with instructions for the district court to allow Ricks to amend his pleadings and to appoint counsel to represent him. View "Ricks v. Khan" on Justia Law

Cedric Ray Jones pleaded guilty to charges including conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and using and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. The conspiracy charge was the predicate for the firearm conviction under the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Jones waived his rights to challenge his convictions and sentences on direct appeal or through collateral attack as part of his plea agreement. After the Supreme Court struck down the residual clause of § 924(c) in United States v. Davis, Jones sought to vacate his § 924(c) conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but the district court ruled that his collateral attack was barred by his appeal waiver.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied Jones's motion to dismiss the firearm counts and later denied his § 2255 motion, concluding that the appeal waiver was enforceable. The court granted a certificate of appealability on whether the waiver barred his Davis claim and whether it was unenforceable under the miscarriage of justice exception. Jones argued that the waiver should not apply because it was too broad, unknowing, and that enforcing it would result in a miscarriage of justice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the appeal waiver was enforceable. The court rejected Jones's arguments, stating that the waiver was knowing and voluntary, and that the statutory-maximum exception did not apply. The court also declined to recognize a broad miscarriage-of-justice exception to the waiver. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the enforcement of the appeal waiver and denying Jones's request for relief based on the Davis decision. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Twin brothers Elijah and Kareem Muhammad were investigated for sex trafficking by the Fort Worth Police Department (FWPD) starting in 2018. Elijah was arrested in 2019 during a sting operation, and Kareem was arrested in 2023. The investigation revealed sex-trafficking activities dating back to 2011, involving multiple victims across several states. Concurrently, the FWPD and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) were investigating the brothers for fentanyl trafficking. In 2023, Elijah and Kareem were arrested for drug-related offenses, leading to their guilty pleas for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and unlawful possession of ammunition, respectively.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas handled the initial cases. Both brothers signed plea agreements in which the government promised not to bring additional charges based on the conduct underlying their guilty pleas. However, after their guilty pleas, the government charged them with sex trafficking in a separate case. The district court denied their motions to dismiss the sex-trafficking charges, finding that the sex-trafficking conduct was distinct from the drug-related offenses in terms of time, location, and statutory violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the sex-trafficking conduct was temporally, geographically, and statutorily distinct from the drug-related conduct. The court found that the sex-trafficking activities spanned over a decade and involved multiple states and victims, whereas the drug-related offenses were confined to a specific period and location. Consequently, the court concluded that the government did not breach the plea agreements by prosecuting the brothers for sex trafficking. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Muhammad" on Justia Law

A bankruptcy trustee objected to the treatment of student-loan debt under two proposed Chapter 13 plans filed by Victoria Florita Durand-Day and Lavonda Latrece Evans. Durand-Day listed $113,560.65 in nonpriority unsecured claims, including two student loans totaling $54,195.00, but her plan only accounted for $71,580.65 in scheduled unsecured claims. Evans listed $106,402.00 in nonpriority unsecured claims, including twelve student loans totaling $73,927.00, but her plan only accounted for $32,475.00 in scheduled unsecured claims. Both debtors proposed to pay their student loans directly to the lenders rather than through the Chapter 13 trustee.The bankruptcy court overruled the trustee's objections and confirmed the plans, concluding that the plans satisfied 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(A) because the student-loan obligations would be paid in full according to their contractual terms under § 1322(b)(5). The trustee appealed, and the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, holding that the payments toward the student-loan obligations were still "under the [Plans]" per § 1325(b)(1)(A) even if they continued beyond the end of the plans.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the plans did not satisfy 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1). The court held that "under the plan" means that all allowed, unsecured claims, including student-loan obligations, must be paid in full within the life of the Chapter 13 plan. The court vacated the confirmation of the plans and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the debtors to file new plans consistent with this decision. View "Bassel v. Durand-Day" on Justia Law