Designated for publication
- Allen v. State of Louisiana, 20-30734, appeal from M.D. La.
- Duncan, J. (Davis, Duncan, Oldham), Oldham, J., concurring; Voting Rights Act
- Affirming Middle District of Louisiana’s denial of state’s motion to dismiss VRA claims challenging the composition of Louisiana’s state supreme court districts. The Court held that the question of VRA compliance of Louisiana’s state supreme court districts was not exclusively in the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Louisiana and its administration of the 1991 consent decree regarding the creation of Louisiana Supreme Court district 7 in that federal judicial district in Chisom v. Roemer.
- The Court held that the Chisom consent decree was subject to the law of contracts, requiring an examination of the parties’ intent, and held that the parties’ intent in entering the Chisom decree was to create a majority-Black district to remedy the dilution of the votes of Black voters in Orleans Parish, and not to create a system of judicial district-drawing statewide.
- Judge Oldham concurred, emphasizing his view that the courts’ jurisdiction is conferred by Congress and that no consent decree–“even in its most pernicious manifestation”–can alter that Congressionally-conferred jurisdiction.
- Luminant Mining Company, LLC v. PakeyBey, 20-40803, appeal from E.D. Tex.
- Wilson, J. (King, Higginson, Wilson), property rights
- Affirming district court’s summary judgment in favor of mining company that it had fulfilled Texas’s adverse possession requirements and therefore held good title to property that the defendant claimed title to as the heir of a 19th century tenant-in-common.
- The Court held, “Luminant’s possession and Luminant’s recorded deeds are sufficient to give constructive notice of hostility to cotenants and to effect an ouster. Parr, 236 S.W.2d at 506 (citations omitted). … Every recorded grant in Luminant’s chain of title after the original patent to Chism and Walling as tenants in common purported to convey the whole estate. The recordation of these deeds long ago provided constructive notice to any cotenants of a hostile possession sufficient to accomplish ouster.”
Unpublished
- Jones v. Texas Dept. of Child Protective Services, 20-50410, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Southwick, Graves, Costa), prisoner suit
- Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of suit regarding custody of prisoner’s children while he was in custody.
- Orrashid v. Garland, 20-60420, petition for review of BIA order
- per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), immigration
- Dismissing in part and denying in part Bangladeshi citizen’s petition for review of dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his appeal from the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
- Mpesse v. Garland, 20-61207, petition for review of BIA order
- per curiam (Elrod, Southwick, Costa), immigration
- Granting Cameroonian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order upholding IJ’s adverse credibility decision,and remanding to determine “whether the remaining valid evidence of inconsistent testimony would have convinced the immigration judge that the petitioner was not credible.”
- U.S. v. Garcia, 21-10546, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Sanchez, 21-50133, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Barksdale, Costa, Engelhardt), criminal, compassionate release
- Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
- U.S. v. Hidrogo, 21-50203, c/w U.S. v. Hidrogo-Marin, 21-50209, appeals from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), criminal, sentencing
- Granting summary affirmance of sentencing on revocation of supervised release.
- Clavel-Avelar v. Garland, 21-60563, petition for review of BIA order
- per curiam (King, Smith, Willett), immigration
- Granting summary affirmance of BIA order denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Take the Fifth 