April 6-7, 2022, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Seguin v. Remington Arms Co., 17-30499, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Southwick, J. (Owen, Dennis, Southwick), Dennis, J., dissenting; product liability
    • After Louisiana Supreme Court declined certified question on the issue, reversing summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in design-defect claim under the Louisiana Product Liability Act (“LPLA”) against firearm manufacturer after accidental discharge during hunting trip injured plaintiff, and rendering summary judgment in favor of defendant on basis that LPLA does not allow design-defect claims against firearm manufacturers.
    • Section 60(B) of the LPLA provides with regard to claims against firearm manufacturers: “No firearm manufacturer or seller shall be liable for any injury, damage, or death resulting from any shooting injury by any other person unless the claimant proves and shows that such injury, damage, or death was proximately caused by the unreasonably dangerous construction or composition of the product as provided in R.S. 9:2800.55.”
    • The Court held that the plain meaning of 60(B) makes an exception allowing claims against firearms manufacturers only for certain manufacturing-defect claims, thus excluding the plaintiff’s design-defect claim.
    • The Court rejected plaintiff’s superfluity argument that 60(C), which precludes claims arising from improper use of a firearm, as the plaintiff’s alleged superfluity would remain even if 60(B) were construed to also cover design defects. The Court held, regardless, that there was no superfluity because 60(B) applies only to a “shooting injury by any other person,” while 60(C) more broadly applies to improper use via “any action of any person.”
    • The Court held that neither 60(D), 60(E), nor 60(F), which arguably contain specific references to types of design defects and failure-to-warn claims, present a superfluity problem because they do not have “actor limitations,” “thereby precluding claims where the actor limitation of Section 60(B) does not apply[.]”
    • The Court then held there was no absurdity in its interpretation of 60(B) to only provide an exception for manufacturing-defect claims where the first section of the 1999 amendment to the LPLA that added the firearms sections was more broad in its reference to types of product liability claims. “A somewhat broader hortatory statement of purpose than is realized in actual statutory language is not absurd, and, possibly, not even unusual.”
    • Judge Dennis dissented. “Because I continue to agree with the district court’s rationale and result in plaintiff’s favor, I continue to respectfully dissent for the same reasons I previously assigned. My colleagues’ majority opinion erroneously applies §60(B) mechanistically and robotically, disregarding the context of Louisiana and American products liability law, and reaching absurd consequences.”
  • U.S. v. Alfaro, 20-51054, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Jolly, J. (Jolly, Smith, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Vacating sentence of 121 months’ imprisonment, 3 years’ supervised release, and restitution of $9,922,428.63 on basis that the district court erroneously assessed the total loss amount, but otherwise affirming sentence and conviction for seven counts of mail fraud, and remanding for resentencing on a correct calculation of total loss amount.
    • The Court noted that the district court failed to acknowledge the Government’s concession that the PSR had erroneously failed to reduce the total loss by $492,828.90, which would have resulted in an 18-level adjustment rather than a 20-level adjustment and would have altered the applicable Guidelines range.
  • U.S. v. Ceasar, 21-20163, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Elrod, J. (Stewart, Clement, Elrod), criminal, competency
    • Affirming district court’s order that the defendant be returned to custody for a second period of competency restoration treatment, after defendant had been released from initial commitment, warden of medical facility had issued a certificate that the defendant had recovered sufficiently to be competent to stand trial, but the defendant had then again been deemed incompetent.
    • The Court held, “After a defendant’s initial period of commitment for treatment to evaluate or restore competency, the district court has the authority to order an additional commitment period if it concludes that there is a substantial probability that the defendant will regain competency within that period. There is no statutory basis to conclude that the court loses that authority simply because when the proceedings were stayed the medical facility certified that the defendant was competent at a particular moment.”
  • Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, 22-40043, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Stewart, J. (Barksdale, Stewart, Dennis), Barksdale, J., dissenting; COVID-19
    • Vacating district court’s nationwide preliminary injunction of Biden Administration’s vaccine requirement for all executive branch employees, and remanding to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
    • The plaintiffs challenged the executive order in the Southern District of Texas, after similar challenges to the order had failed in twelve other district courts. The district court attempted to distinguish those other rejections as due to various procedural missteps and not on the merits, and rejected the Government’s argument that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 deprived it of jurisdiction.
    • Under the CSRA, “[o]nce an employing agency finalizes an adverse action, … the aggrieved employee may appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). If the employee prevails on appeal, the MSPB can order the agency to comply with its decision and award reinstatement, backpay, and attorney’s fees. An employee who is dissatisfied with the MSPB’s decision is entitled to judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under § 7703. The Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction over such appeals is ‘exclusive.'” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
    • The Court held that “[t]he CSRA’s ‘text, structure, and purpose’ support the Government’s position” that the CSRA deprived the district court of jurisdiction.
    • Judge Barksdale dissented. “The [Executive Order’s] enactment … does not constitute an adverse action subject to CSRA. The case at hand is instead a pre-enforcement challenge to a government-wide policy, imposed by the President, that would affect the 2.1 million federal civilian workers, including the 6,000 members of Feds for Medical Freedom. Relief plaintiffs seek does not fall within the purpose of CSRA. Enacting the EO and then requiring federal civilian employees who may later receive adverse action to seek relief now through CSRA would result in the very type of lengthy and haphazard results CSRA was enacted to prevent.”

Unpublished

  • Hernandez-Abrego v. Garland, 19-60228, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), immigration
    • Denying in part and dismissing in part Salvadoran citizens’ petition for review of BIA order dismissing their appeal of the denial by the Immigration Judge (IJ) of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
  • Williams v. City of Richardson, 20-10417, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), employment discrimination
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of claims of employment discrimination arising from plaintiff’s not receiving a promotion.
  • Mount v. Lumpkin, 20-20176, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), habeas corpus
    • Dismissing for lack of jurisdiction appeal from interlocutory rulings regarding petitioner’s § 2254 petition.
  • Decker v. Todo, 20-40778, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Graves, Costa), § 1983
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of private civil action.
  • U.S. v. Gonzalez-Aros, 20-40807, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Smith, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming on the basis of lack of plain error the conviction and sentence for conspiring to transport illegal aliens within the United States.
  • Enriquez-Acuapa v. Garland, 20-60798, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), immigration
    • Denying Mexican citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal.
  • Lin v. Garland, 20-60965, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), immigration
    • Affirming decision of BIA on Chinese citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming IJ’s denial of claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
  • Penate-De Osorio v. Garland, 20-61044, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), immigration
    • Affirming decision of BIA on Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing administrative appeal of IJ’s denial of application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT.
  • U.S. v. Holland, 21-10393, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal, sentencing
    • Dismissing appeal under appeal waiver in guilty plea from 220-month sentence on conviction of one count of conspiring to interfere with commerce by robbery and one count of using, carrying, brandishing, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.
  • U.S. v. Jackson, 21-10453, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Kincade, 21-10623, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of five counts of conspiring to dispense and distribute, or to possess with intent to dispense and distribute a controlled substance.
  • U.S. v. Rosales, 21-10629, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal, guilty plea
    • Affirming guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, finding no plain error from defendant’s argument that the appeal-waiver provision of the guilty plea was not adequately explained to him.
  • U.S. v. Perez-Solis, 21-10902, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of 51-month sentence and conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Cordova, 21-10992, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Mireles, 21-11002, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Barr v. Stripes L.L.C., 21-20278, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Jones, Duncan), employment discrimination, Age Discrimination in Employment Act
    • Affirming judgment as a matter of law dismissing plaintiff’s ADEA and state discrimination claims on the basis that plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing state claims and had failed to timely file ADEA claims.
  • U.S. Bank National Association v. Lamell, 21-20326, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Clement, Elrod), foreclosure
    • Affirming summary judgment in favor of bank in declaratory judgment action arising from foreclosure proceedings.
  • U.S. v. Harris, 21-30326, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (King, Jones, Duncan), criminal, competency
    • Affirming district court order holding that defendant remains incompetent to stand trial and continuing his commitment to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4241.
  • Okeke v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 21-30451, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Clement, Elrod), Title VII
    • Affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s Title VII claims of discrimination while a resident at medical school.
  • U.S. v. Stewart, 21-30498, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine.
  • Alwell v. LaBlanc, 21-30540, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of prisoner’s § 1983 claim.
  • U.S. v. Villagran, 21-40472, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Costa, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Affirming convictions for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, intending that it would be imported unlawfully into the United States, and manufacturing and distributing five kilograms or more of cocaine, intending that it would be imported unlawfully into the United States.
  • U.S. v. Doria-Hernandez, 21-40604, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Willett, Duncan), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 40-month sentence on conviction of being found in the United States after deportation.
  • U.S. v. Trevino-Gomez, 21-40689, c/w 21-40706, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Ruiz, 21-40723, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal, guilty plea
    • Affirming conviction of one count of wire fraud, finding factual basis for guilty plea was sufficient.
  • U.S. v. Torres-Mata, 21-40797, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Rosas-Padilla, 21-40823, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Serna-Granados, 21-40857, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Martinez-Cruz, 21-40871, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Bender, 21-50643, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 63-month sentence on conviction of possessing a firearm after a felony conviction.
  • Hicks v. Pinney, 21-50691, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing untimely appeal of dismissal of prisoner’s § 1983 suit for lack of jurisdiction.
  • U.S. v. Renteria, 21-50713, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 14-month sentence on revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Martinez-Cardoza, 21-50856, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Elvir-Robledo v. Garland, 21-60373, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order upholding the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
  • Jarimillo-Morones v. Garland, 21-60543, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), immigration
    • Denying in part and dismissing in part Mexican citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for cancellation of removal and his request for voluntary departure.