December 20-29, 2021, opinions

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Greer, 19-11348, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Stewart, J. (Higginbotham, Stewart, Wilson), criminal, sentencing, Armed Career Criminal Act
    • On remand from U.S. Supreme Court, vacating sentence under the ACCA to 120 months on guilty-plea conviction of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, and remanding for resentencing.
    • In Borden v. United States,141 S. Ct. 1817, 1834 (2021), the Supreme Court held that offenses involving a mens rea of recklessness do not qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA. Because the district court did not have the benefit of Borden when sentencing the defendant in this case, the Court vacated the sentence, which was based on the classification of various prior assault offenses as predicate offenses under the ACCA, and remanded for resentencing. The Court rejected the Government’s argument that the sentencing error was harmless because the district court would have sentenced the defendant to the statutory maximum anyway, finding no support for the hypothetical maximum sentence in the record.
  • U.S. v. Okulaja, 20-20101, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Wiener, J. (Wiener, Graves, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction of using two counterfeit passports to open bank accounts, but vacating 33-month sentence and remanding for rehearing.
    • The Court held that the district court did not err in admitting two webcam photos of the defendant opening the bank accounts at issue as being properly authenticated. “Like the properly admitted testimony in United States v. Rahim regarding the audio recordings kept as business records, Ms. Momin’s testimony described the process by which the photos were captured, stored, and produced.”
    • The Court held that the district court did not commit harmful error in declining to admit a fake ID with the photograph of someone other than the defendant.
    • The Court held that the district court did clearly err, however, in allowing one check to be included as “relevant conduct” in the calculation of the sentencing enhancement, which increased the amount attributable to the crime to an extent that increased the statutory range to include a maximum of 33 months rather than a maximum of 16 months. “The district court wrongly applied § 1B1.3(a)(2) by using a cross-referenced guideline instead of the actual offense of conviction. Doing so meant that it could treat Okulaja’s deposit of the Schnur Check as relevant conduct because it was ‘part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction,’ even though it did not occur (1) during the commission of the offense of conviction, (2) in preparation for that offense, or (3) in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense. Had the district court applied the correct definition—the one found in § 1B1.3(a)(1)—it could not have treated the Schnur Check as relevant conduct.”
  • U.S. v. Vargas, 20-50029, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Wiener, J. (Wiener, Elrod, Higginson), Elrod, J., concurring only in judgment; criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 51-month sentence on conviction of fraudulently obtaining federal worker’s compensation benefits and stealing government property.
    • The Court held that the district court did not clearly err in applying the general rule of intended loss in calculating the loss attributable to the crime, rather than the specific government-benefits rule.
    • The Court also held that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. “The district court was well aware of Vargas’s personal history and background when selecting his sentence. The fact that the judge declined to find those factors persuasive enough to warrant a reduced sentence does not mean that he failed to sufficiently consider those factors under § 3553(a)(1). The district court also sufficiently considered the need for the sentence imposed under § 3553(a)(2), citing the serious nature of the underlying offense and Vargas’s obstruction of justice as key justifications for the guidelines sentence. And any sentencing disparities between Vargas and others convicted of the same crime are explained by the specific facts related to the instant offense.”
    • Judge Elrod concurred only in judgment. “An error that the defendant affirmatively ratified in the district court does not justify reversal on plain-error review because it does not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial. See, e.g., United States v. Duque-Hernandez, 710 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 2013). As the majority opinion notes, Vargas’s counsel affirmatively stated that the Presentence Investigation Report calculated his total offense level correctly. Therefore, this court need not exercise its discretion to correct even a ‘clear and obvious’ error. That should be enough to decide this case. Unfortunately, in arriving at the same conclusion, the majority opinion adds confusion to our government benefits rule caselaw.”
  • Rivera v. Director, 20-60357, petition for review of Dept. of Labor Workers’ Compensation Benefits Review Board
    • Elrod, J. (Elrod, Willett, Engelhardt), Engelhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, attorneys’ fees
    • Reversing Benefits Review Board ruling on basis that the plain text of 33 U.S.C. § 928(b) required an award of attorneys’ fees, and remanding for further proceedings.
    • The Court first held that the petitioner’s petition for review was timely, as the time should be measured from the BRB’s en banc decision and not from the original BRB panel decision.
    • The Court then held that attorneys’ fees were required under 928(b) because all four criteria were met: “(1) an informal conference is held; (2) the BRB or a deputy commissioner issues a written recommendation; (3) the employer refuses to adopt the recommendation within fourteen days; and (4) the employee procures a lawyer’s services to achieve an award greater than that which the employer was willing to pay after the written recommendation was issued.”
    • The Court held that the BRB erred when it found that the employer’s declining the recommendation and asking for a reconsideration of the recommendation tolled the 14-day period under the third factor. “Ameri-Force provides no legal authority showing that a subsequent recommendation renders a prior one moot. And the plain language of § 928(b) suggests no such thing. That provision merely states that after a recommendation is issued, the employer may open itself up to attorney’s fees liability if it refuses to accept the recommendation within fourteen days. 33 U.S.C. § 928(b). The statute says nothing about the effect of follow-up recommendations, so such recommendations do not undo the direct consequences of the statute’s plain terms. … [T]he regulations make clear that if an employer wishes to seek reconsideration of an initial recommendation by way of a new conference, it may do so but may be liable for attorney’s fees depending on the result.”
    • Judge Engelhardt dissented in part. “I agree that Rivera’s petition was timely filed and that the August 24, 2016 recommendation was a “recommendation” for purposes of § 928(b). On the instant record, however, I part ways with the majority regarding Rivera’s entitlement to an award of attorney’s fees. Had the claims examiner not issued the September 7, 2016 ‘Supplemental Informal Conference Recommendation’ until after the expiration of the fourteen-day period following Ameri-Force’s August 29 receipt of the August 24 recommendation, I would agree with the majority’s determination. But, importantly, that did not occur here.”
  • RealPage, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., 21-10299, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Wilson, J. (Owen, Jones, Wilson), insurance
    • Affirming summary judgment in favor of crime insurance insurer, holding that, because funds paid by insured to customers whose funds were stolen after a successful pfishing attack were never funds that were “held” by the insured, there was no coverage under the policy for stolen funds.
    • The Court held, “RealPage never possessed its property manager clients’ funds that got caught in the phishers’ net. And, crediting RealPage’s argument that it could nonetheless ‘hold’ the funds without ‘possessing’ them, RealPage did not control the lost funds either, notwithstanding the routing instructions it provided to Stripe.”
  • Johnson v. TheHuffingtonPost.Com, Inc., 21-20022, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Smith, J. (King, Smith, Haynes), Haynes, J., dissenting; personal jurisdiction
    • Affirming dismissal of libel suit on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas over defendant online-media company.
    • The Court held that, where the “website markets ads, merchandise, and ad-free experiences to all comers,” that was insufficient to create the contacts with the forum state required for personal jurisdiction. “HuffPost is interactive, but its story about Johnson has no ties to Texas. The story does not mention Texas. It recounts a meeting that took place outside Texas, and it used no Texan sources. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over HuffPost with respect to Johnson’s libel claim. … At bottom, the only reason to hale HuffPost into Texas is that Texans visited the site, clicking ads and buying things there. But as far as Johnson has alleged, those visits reflect only HuffPost’s universal accessibility, not its purposeful availment of Texas. Accessibility alone cannot sustain our jurisdiction.”
    • In response to the dissent, the majority notes, “[W]e apply longstanding, uncontroversial limits on personal jurisdiction. We may not discard those limits just because the defendant operates a website. Yet the dissent, we fear, would strip the shields of relatedness and purposeful availment from virtual defendants.”
    • Judge Haynes dissents. “The reality of the modern world is that printed newspapers are far less common than virtual ones. But just as we are bound to apply constitutional provisions to modern situations—often, unimaginable to the founders—we are bound to apply Supreme Court and circuit precedent. Therein lies my disagreement with the majority opinion.”
  • WalMart, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice, 21-40157, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • Smith, J. (Higginbotham, Smith, Ho), Higginbotham, J., concurring; Controlled Substances Act, administrative law, jurisdiction
    • Affirming dismissal of suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, where WalMart had challenged the government’s interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act as it applies to pharmacists who dispense prescription opioids.
    • The Court held that WalMart failed to identify any particular agency rule, guidance, or other public document that it sought to challenge, such that the suit was not viable under the Administrative Procedures Act and was therefore barred by sovereign immunity.
    • “[I]n this circuit, a plaintiff suing a federal agency must identify some agency action affecting him in a specific way and must show that he has suffered legal wrong because of it.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
    • The Court first held that the conduct identified by WalMart does not constitute “rules,” which are positions of general applicability. “Walmart cites several ‘rules,’ but most of them derive not from official publications but from positions allegedly taken by the government in settlement negotiations with Walmart. Though there is room for disagreement about precisely what satisfies the definition of ‘rule,’ it surely does not include negotiating positions.”
    • In dicta, the Court also noted that the controversy identified by WalMart is not ripe, because there is no final agency position, as evident in ongoing enforcement actions and positions taken by the government in those actions.
    • Judge Higginbotham concurred on the basis that the dicta in the ripeness inquiry was unnecessary for the decision.
  • Earl v. The Boeing Co., 21-40720, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • Oldham, J. (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), Elrod, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part; class action
    • Granting defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery while Court considers their 23(f) appeal of a class certification order in an action arising from alleged concealment of design flaws in Boeing’s 737 Max 8 aircraft.
    • The Court held that, “even under a deferential standard of review, Boeing and Southwest have shown that all four Nken factors favor a stay of discovery during the pendency of their Rule 23(f) appeal.”
    • The Court held that defendants were likely to be successful on the merits of their appeal of class certification because of the likely lack of predominance of common questions over individual ones. “Under plaintiffs’ theory of injury, they would be owed damages for the difference between the ticket price they were charged and the ticket price they would have been charged if the MAX’s alleged defects had been widely known and deflated ticket prices. In order to show Rule 23(b)(3) predominance on the question of damages, then, plaintiffs must show that the price-deflating effect of public knowledge of the MAX’s defects would have been fairly uniform across all the various routes and dates (over 18 months) involved in this lawsuit. But both the plaintiffs’ and the defendants’ expert testimony suggest plaintiffs will not be able to make that showing. The substantial predominance questions raised by Boeing and Southwest’s Rule 23(f) petitions thus give Boeing and Southwest a significant likelihood of success on appeal.”
    • The Court held that the defendants had demonstrated irreparable harm: “[T]he classes in this case contain thousands or millions of members, and discovery for a class action suit of this magnitude will be very costly and time-consuming.”
    • The Court also held that, without a specific threat of spoliation of evidence, there was no irreparable harm to other parties from granting the stay; and that, since the plaintiffs only sought individual monetary damages, there was no harm to public interest in granting the stay.
    • Judge Elrod dissented in part. “In staying all discovery, the panel flips Rule 23(f) on its head and places its burden on the wrong shoulders. I would instead allow discovery to proceed on the issue of defendants’ liability. … Rule 23(f) contemplates infrequent stays and deference to the district court’s stay decision. Rule 23(f) was drafted to avoid delay.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Judge Elrod opined that this creates a “dual burden” on the movants–both to meet the Nken factors and to do so so convincingly that it cleared the 23(f) deference to the district court.

Unpublished

  • Angeles v. Garland, 18-60715, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), immigration
    • On remand from U.S. Supreme Court, denying petition to review BIA order denying motion to reopen.
  • U.S. v. Copeland, 19-30898, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Owen, Southwick, Wilson), criminal, sufficiency of evidence
    • Affirming conviction of five counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
  • U.S. v. Gonzalez, 19-51089, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal, supervised release
    • Affirming supervised release conditions announced as part of sentence on conviction of possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possessing with intent to distribute heroin, conspiring to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possessing a firearm as a felon, and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking.
  • U.S. v. Carrizal-Ramos, 20-10025, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence as modified for conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Travis, 20-10408, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Costa), criminal, sentencing, Armed Career Criminal Act
    • On remand from U.S. Supreme Court, affirming sentence under the ACCA, finding that sentence would not have changed even if prior assault conviction had not been a predicate ACCA crime of violence.
  • U.S. v. Garza, 20-10599, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Haynes, Costa), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 300-month sentence and conviction of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute and possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute.
  • U.S. v. Rodriguez, 20-10862, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Haynes, Costa), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 324-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance.
  • U.S. v. Abdulqader, 20-10891, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Haynes, Costa), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Parker, 20-11182, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Southwick, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 65-month sentence and conviction of possessing a firearm after a felony conviction.
  • U.S. v. Gage, 20-20346, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Engelhardt), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Longoria, 20-20451, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Dennis, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Vacating 78-month sentence for conviction of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • U.S. v. Love, 20-20531, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Elrod, Graves), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming lifetime term of supervised release as part of sentence on conviction of production of child pornography.
  • U.S. v. Jackson, 20-20595, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Southwick, Wilson), criminal, compassionate release, First Step Act
    • Vacating denial of motion for compassionate release and for sentence reduction under the First Step Act, and remanding for reconsideration in light of United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021).
  • Brumfield v. Goodwin, 20-30381, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), prisoner suit
    • Affirming judgment and punitive damage award in favor of inmate in 8th Amendment claim against warden.
  • Pigg v. Harris, 20-30546, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of California prisoner’s suit against Louisiana Department of Natural Resources arising from mineral rights he allegedly owned in Louisiana.
  • Marzett v. Vannoy, 20-30575, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Willett), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of sec. 1983 claims.
  • U.S. v. Rodriguez-Flores, 20-40438, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Tamez, 20-40848, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Willett, Duncan), criminal, guilty plea, sentencing
    • Affirming 151-month sentence and guilty-plea conviction of conspiring to transport an alien resulting in death and possessing a firearm after sustaining a felony conviction.
  • U.S. v. Perez-Hernandez, 20-50956, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Dennis, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming term of supervised release as part of sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Stewart, 20-50965, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, First Step Act
    • Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction from 327-month sentence on conviction of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base and two counts of aiding and abetting possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base, under the First Step Act.
  • U.S. v. Hunt, 20-50993, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Southwick, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 262-month sentence on conviction of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine.
  • Cedio v. Garland, 20-60013, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Willett), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order denying him asylum.
  • Cardona-Aguirre v. Garland, 20-60019, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Owen, Haynes, Costa), immigration
    • Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing her appeal from the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal.
  • Vasquez-Rosales v. Garland, 20-60446, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Willett, Duncan), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal.
  • Barrios-Escobar v. Garland, 20-60639, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), immigration
    • Denying Guatemalan citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from the denial of his asylum application.
  • Ayala-Ramos v. Garland, 20-60670, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), immigration
    • Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of an immigration judge’s decision affirming an asylum officer’s determination that he lacked a reasonable fear of persecution.
  • Alvarez-Espinal v. Garland, 20-61039, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Owen, Southwick, Wilson), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing her appeal and upholding the denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings.
  • U.S. v. Jean-Louis, 21-10260, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Southwick, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 240-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
  • U.S. v. Farias, 21-10310, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Gonzalez-Banales, 21-10312, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Bell, 21-10359, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal, sentencing, Armed Career Criminal Act
    • Granting summary affirmance of 180-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, including ACCA enhancement.
  • U.S. v. Arenas-Tellez, 21-10401, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 24-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • Robinson v. Lumpkin, 21-10447, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), habeas corpus
    • Affirming denial of sec. 2254 petition arising from prison disciplinary proceeding.
  • U.S. v. Hall, 21-10489, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Garza-Limones, 21-10492, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of 72-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Greenwood, 21-10602, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Ifebajo, 21-10605, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Waldman, 21-10637, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting summary affirmance of guilty-plea conviction for receipt of a firearm while under indictment for a felony.
  • U.S. v. Vargas, 21-20148, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Castillo, 21-20209, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Garcia, 21-20359, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Willett, Duncan), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Lawless, 21-30092, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Owen, Southwick, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 81-month sentence on conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
  • Roberson v. Castro, 21-40009, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of sec. 1983 suit.
  • U.S. v. Arias, 21-40097, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Southwick, Wilson), criminal, guilty plea
    • Affirming guilty plea conviction of conspiring to possess fifty grams or more of methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Rubio, 21-40164, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Benteler Automotive Corp. v. Allied Plastics, Inc., 21-40282, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Graves, J. (Wiener, Graves, Ho), products liability
    • Dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction third-party plaintiff’s appeal of grant of summary judgment on their indemnity claims under Texas product liability law.
  • U.S. v. Ramirez-Rodriguez, 21-40318, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Trevino-Silva, 21-40331, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Velez-Escalante, 21-40396, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Manilla-Tolentino, 21-40411, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Alvarado-Ponce, 21-40440, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Urbina-Espinoza, 21-40526, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Rosa, 21-50197, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Southwick, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 324-month sentence on conviction of possession with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of actual methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Garcia, 21-50381, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Enriquez-Beltran, 21-50416, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Gaucin-Castillo, 21-50439, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Quici, 21-50468, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Vaquera-Sanchez, 21-50528, c/w 21-50560, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of 16-month sentence and conviction of illegal reentry.