July 18, 2022, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Coulter, 20-10999, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Jones, J. (Richman, Jones, Wilson); Jones, J., concurring; Richman, C.J., dissenting; criminal, search and seizure
    • Reversing district court’s order suppressing the defendant’s statements made to officer about his possession of a gun and his prior aggravated robbery conviction, where those statements were made without a Miranda warning, holding that “a reasonable person in Coulter’s position would not have thought that he was in custody for Miranda purposes” at the time he made the statements.
    • The defendant was pulled over by the arresting officer, and then voluntarily got out of his van to talk with the officer. He initially denied that he had a gun in the van, but during the conversation made statements that indicated that he may have a gun and that he didn’t need any more “strikes.” The officer placed the defendant in handcuffs, telling him that he was detaining him “for officer safety.” The officer then asked him if he had a gun and where it was, and the defendant responded that it was in his backpack in the van. After being indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, he moved to suppress all statements made after he was handcuffed, as he was not given a Miranda warning. The district court granted the motion to suppress, and continued the trial while the government pursued an interlocutory appeal.
    • The Court held that the “freedom-of-movement test” is “‘only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.'” Citing the Supreme Court’s recent Vega decision, 2022 WL 2251304, the Court held that post-Miranda decisions all engage in a cost-benefit analysis to apply Miranda suppression only where the purposes of the prophylactic rule are advanced. Because “Officer Guzman did not question Coulter in an environment resembling the station house questioning at issue in Miranda,” the Court held that the defendant’s unwarned statements made while being handcuffed were admissible.
    • Judge Jones concurred with her own majority opinion. She disagreed that Coulter was even in custody at all, before even getting to the cost-benefit analysis of the coercive nature of the environment of the traffic stop. “The costs of suppressing Coulter’s unwarned statements would be substantial, namely, hindering the prosecution of a convicted felon who voluntarily admitted to possessing a firearm and drugs. Society has a ‘compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law.’ … Further, the videotape of this entire encounter compellingly shows there was no improper compulsion or restraint. Officer Guzman did not coerce Coulter into disclosing the location of his gun. He was alone in the dark with Coulter and asked him twice about gun possession, even before he learned Coulter was a felon previously convicted of aggravated robbery. The motivation for officer safety was plain in his questioning and ultimate handcuffing. Officer Guzman never raised his voice, nor did he threaten or accuse Coulter.”
    • Judge Richman dissented. “The restrictions placed on Braylon Ray Coulter during a traffic stop were of the degree associated with a formal arrest. When Coulter offered to walk away from his van before Officer Nino de Guzman searched it, Officer Guzman told him to turn around and face the squad car. He told Coulter that he had backup around the corner. He also warned Coulter not to pull away because, if he did, Officer Guzman would “have to tase” him. Then Officer Guzman put Coulter in handcuffs. Guzman asked incriminating questions but at no point read Coulter his Miranda rights. Because the totality of the restraints imposed on Coulter amounted to custody, I would affirm the district court’s suppression of Coulter’s post-handcuffing statements, especially in light of our deference to lower courts on motions to suppress.”
  • Wages and White Lion Investments, L.L.C. v. Food and Drug Administration, 21-60766, c/w 21-60800, petitions for review of FDA order
    • Haynes, J. (Jones, Haynes, Costa), Jones, J., dissenting; administrative law
    • Denying e-cigarette marketers’ petitions for review of FDA marketing denial orders (“MDOs”) that denied petitioners’ premarket tobacco product applications on the basis that the petitioners failed to provide “reliable and robust evidence … to overcome the risks of youth addiction and show a benefit to adult smokers.” Notably, this reversed directions from a prior motion panel’s grant of a stay of the FDA denial pending review of the petition by the Court.
    • The Court first held that the FDA does have authority to impose a “comparative efficacy requirement.” The Court held that 21 U.S.C. § 387j provides for a consideration of risk, and that risk is not limited to physical health risks but also includes addiction initiation and cessation behaviors.
    • The Court then held that the FDA did not impose a “surprise switcheroo” or act arbitrarily and capriciously in imposing a requirement for scientific studies to support the premarketing applications. The Court found that the FDA did consider the petitioners’ other evidence, but found it weak, and that its comments regarding the lack of scientific evidence was not a requirement for such evidence but a suggestion of what type of evidence would boost an otherwise weak application. “[T]he FDA does not now—and has not ever—required studies of smoking cessation. Contrary to the motion panel’s determination that FDA made a ‘radical’ change, FDA has always suggested and continues to suggest that such studies might be useful, in particular where, as here, the evidence presented in an application is otherwise weak.” The Court noted that the FDA had always used “conditional language” in referencing the utility of scientific evidence.
    • Judge Jones dissented, calling the FDA’s actions “a mockery of ‘reasoned’ administrative decision-making,” and commenting that “Kafka would have understood the FDA all too well.”

Unpublished

  • Sorto v. Garland, 19-60032, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Graves, Ho), immigration
    • Dismissing in part and denying in part Salvadoran citizens’ petition for review of BIA order affirming, without opinion, an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
  • U.S. v. Thurman, 21-30450, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jones, Stewart, Duncan), criminal, search and seizure, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 120-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, upholding district court’s denial of motion to suppress on the basis of a “protective sweep” search.
  • U.S. v. Chavira-Montanez, 21-50404, c/w 21-50417, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Duncan, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of sentence on conviction of illegal reentry and revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Narvaiz-Gonzalez, 21-50752, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Elrod, Haynes), criminal, sentencing
    • Vacating 24-month sentence on conviction of transporting illegal aliens for financial gain, holding that district court erred in applying a reckless endangerment enhancement, and remanding for resentencing.
  • U.S. v. Rodgers, 21-50962, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Lomali, 21-51078, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Marquez-Munoz, 21-51136, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Graves, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of 16-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Campos, 21-51191, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Elrod, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Aguirre-Solano v. Garland, 21-60203, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), immigration
    • Denying in part and dismissing in part Salvadoran citizens’ petition for review of BIA order dismissing their appeal from a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying their consolidated applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
  • U.S. v. Tankersley, 22-10104, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Castro-Rodriguez, 22-40012, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Graves, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.