February 17, 2022, opinions

Unpublished

  • Herndon v. U.S., 20-10688, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), Federal Tort Claims Act
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of former prisoner’s medical malpractice claim under the FTCA.
  • U.S. v. Guin, 20-11184, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), habeas corpus
    • Affirming denial of § 2255 petition on ineffective assistance of counsel.
  • Winfrey v. San Jacinto County, 20-20477, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Southwick, Willett), § 1983
    • Affirming judgment on verdict in favor of plaintiffs in § 1983 claim.
  • Shiell v. Jones, 20-30362, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), foreclosure
    • Affirming dismissal of RICO claims arising from foreclosure.
  • Vallo v. Prator, 20-30674, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction appeal from dismissal of prisoner’s excessive force and deliberate indifference claims.
  • U.S. v. Carey, 20-51046, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Ali v. Garland, 20-60660, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), immigration
    • Denying Pakistani citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
  • U.S. v. Cook, 21-10523, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Garcia, 21-10563, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Stringer, 21-10810, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), criminal, sentencing, Armed Career Criminal Act
    • Granting summary affirmance of 180-month sentence on conviction of possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
  • U.S. v. Maples, 21-10838, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Marshall, 21-10883, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of 8-month sentence on revocation of supervised release.
  • Montemayor v. Chudasama, 21-10988, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), jurisdiction
    • Affirming dismissal of case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
  • Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., 21-11159, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Elrod, Oldham), Smith, J., dissenting; COVID-19
    • Reversing denial of preliminary injunction on finding that plaintiff United Airlines employees who had received religious exemptions but remain on unpaid leave had demonstrated irreparable harm, and remanding for determination of other preliminary injunction factors. “Critically, we do not decide whether United or any other entity may impose a vaccine mandate. Nor do we decide whether plaintiffs are ultimately entitled to a preliminary injunction. The district court denied such an injunction on one narrow ground; we reverse on that one narrow ground and remand for further consideration.”
    • Judge Smith dissented in almost 60 pages; here’s his intro: “In its alacrity to play CEO of a multinational corporation, the majority shatters every dish in the china shop. It rewrites Title VII to create a new cause of action. It twists the record to fit that invention. It defies our precedent and the commands of the Supreme Court. But this majority is no senseless bull. Knowing exactly what it has wrought, the majority declares that its unsigned writing will apply to these parties only. By stripping its judgment of precedential effect, the majority all but admits that its screed could not survive the scrutiny of the en banc court. We should affirm the district court’s cogent and compelling order denying the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. For every conceivable reason that the plaintiffs could lose this appeal, they should. The statute does not allow the relief they seek. Nor do our precedents; if they did, the Supreme Court has overruled them. If they have not been overruled, fifty years of precedent and centuries of Anglo-American remedies law show that preliminary relief may not issue. If it could issue, it shouldn’t, because the only plaintiffs with standing claim no harm from the ‘impossible choice’ between full postjudgment relief and eternal damnation. If we accepted the plaintiffs’ theory and twisted the facts to support it, we must dismiss the appeal because the plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies. If we excused that, they do not answer United’s defenses, so they have not shown that they are likely to win. And if they had shown that, the equities and the public interest would preclude an injunction. Instead of confronting those odds, the majority ignores them and invents a new Title VII sin called ‘ongoing coercion,’ resulting in the plaintiffs’ win. Alleging ‘ongoing coercion’ now supplies a private right to preliminary injunctive relief—not because of text, history, or precedent, but because two well-intentioned but misguided judges say so. My distinguished colleagues claim that as faithful textualists, they accurately apply the statutory text and caselaw to this controversy. I dispute that and show why. I respectfully dissent.”
  • In the Matter of: Cleveland Imaging, 21-20252, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), bankruptcy
    • Dismissing as moot appeal from bankruptcy court sanctions order.
  • Carter v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, 21-30237, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Costa), Family and Medical Leave Act, Americans with Disabilities Act
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of former employee’s FMLA and ADA claims arising from termination of employee for excessive absences after she stopped showing up for work upon developing migraines.
  • U.S. v. Damond, 21-30385, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence upon conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
  • U.S. v. Cota, 21-30477, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 135-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Culpepper, 21-40320, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture and distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine or 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Lieva, 21-40420, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Nunez-Araujo, 21-40617, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Jones, 21-50314, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal, supervised release
    • Affirming imposition of special condition of supervised release that defendant submit to polygraph testing to confirm his compliance with supervised release conditions.
  • U.S. v. Contreras-Zamarripa, 21-50974, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), criminal
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.