July 6, 2022, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Caldwell, 21-10509, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Costa, Ho), habeas corpus
    • Reversing district court’s grant of relief on § 2255 petition, holding that petitioner’s guilty-plea waiver barred collateral attack even where based on a substantive change in the law.
  • Texas v. U.S., 22-40367, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Clement, Engelhardt), immigration, administrative law
    • Denying Department of Homeland Security’s motion to stay district court’s vacatur of new immigration rule pending appeal, holding that DHS failed to make a strong showing of likelihood of success on the appeal because the Court was “inclined to agree” with the district court that the new rule conflicts with federal statutes, is arbitrary and capricious, and was procedurally invalid.
    • The new rule established enforcement priorities and required ICE officials to assess the totality of facts and circumstances on a case-by-case basis in determining whether to enforce detention and removal procedures against individuals illegally in the United States. The rule also provided for a case review process “to afford noncitizens and their representatives the opportunity to obtain expeditious review of the enforcement actions taken.”
    • The Court first held that Texas demonstrated standing to challenge the new rule, due to the costs of criminal recidivism and provision of social services.
    • The Court then held that, under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c) and 1231(e), the requirement to detain and remove a certain subset of noncitizens was not committed to agency discretion: “[T]he instant provisions relate to the expedited removal of a small subset of aliens who have been in the United States and fall into two categories: (1) those who, having been convicted of certain enumerated criminal offenses, are removable; and (2) those who, at the conclusion of immigration proceedings, have become subject to final removal orders.” The Court further found that “the Considerations Memo further confirms what the Final Memo says for itself–that it represents a disingenuous attempt on behalf of DHS to claim it acts within the bounds of federal law while practically disregarding that law.”
    • The Court also held that it was likely the district court would be affirmed, on its finding that the new rule was arbitrary and capricious, on the basis that “DHS failed to adequately consider the high chances of recidivism and absconding within the relevant class of aliens as well as the costs or reliance interests of the States.”
    • The Court also held that the new rule, manifested in a “Final Memo,” was a substantive rulemaking that should have been subjected to notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Unpublished

  • Itoe v. Garland, 20-60922, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), immigration
    • Dismissing Cameroonian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
  • Moran v. Simpson, 21-11231, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Ho, Engelhardt), default judgment
    • Affirming district court’s imposition of default judgment after defendant had actual notice of a court-ordered settlement conference but failed to appear.
  • Bodine v. First Co., 21-11266, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Ho, Engelhardt), breach of contract
    • Affirming dismissal of claims arising out of terminated business relationship.
  • U.S. v. Covarrubias, 21-20020, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal, sentencing
    • Vacating sentence for illegal reentry, and remanding for the limited purpose of amending the written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence.
  • Max-George v. Myrick, 21-20281, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), prisoner suit
    • Vacating district court’s dismissing prisoner plaintiff’s motion to reopen for want of jurisdiction, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • U.S. v. Villanueva, 21-40898, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Duncan, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Granados-Ortez, 21-51085, c/w 21-51086, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal
    • Granting summary affirmance of conviction of illegal reentry and revocation of supervised release.
  • Conrad v. U.S., 21-60476, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Engelhardt), habeas corpus
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from denial of § 2241 petition.
  • U.S. v. Johnson, 21-60616, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from conviction and 120-month sentence for theft of firearms from a licensed firearm dealer.
  • Almeida-Goncalves v. Garland, 21-60526, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), immigration
    • Dismissing Brazilian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order upholding the denial of her motion to reopen.
  • Smith v. Summit Midstream Partners, L.L.C., 22-10020, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Engelhardt), employment discrimination
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims.