November 29, 2022, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Sanare Energy Partners, L.L.C. v. PetroQuest Energy, L.L.C., 21-20677, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Willett, J. (Graves, Willett, Engelhardt), breach of contract
    • In adversary suit in PetroQuest bankruptcy, affirming summary judgment issued by bankruptcy court and affirmed by district court that Sanare did acquire an offshore mineral lease, wells on that lease, and a platform from which those wells were operated, under the terms of a Purchase Sale Agreement with PetroQuest, despite PetroQuest’s failure to secure some third-party consents required for agreements associated with those assets.
    • The Court held that the plain terms of the PSA provided that the lack of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s consent to transfer of the lease was not a consent that was included among those that could render the transfer of an asset void.
    • The Court also held that the lack of other third-party consents only created a relative nullity, not an absolute nullity, under Louisiana law, such that the agreements remained “assets” under the PSA.
  • In re: Andry, 22-30231, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Willett, J. (Stewart, Willett, Oldham), attorney discipline
    • Reversing in part, affirming in part, and remanding from en banc district court’s order of a one-year ban from practice in front of the Eastern District of Louisiana for attorney in BP Deepwater Horizon oil-spill litigation who had been accused of funneling money to a settlement program staff attorney through improper referral payments.
    • The Court held that Rule 1.5(e) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct, prohibiting the sharing of attorneys’ fees in certain circumstances, was ambiguous as to whether its prohibitions would apply to payments between successive attorneys on a representation. Because an attorney suspension is deemed to be quasi-criminal in character, the Court held that the rule of lenity should have applied and restrained the district court from finding a violation of Rule 1.5(e).
    • Because a violation of Rule 8.4(a), for assisting another in violation of the rules, depends on the underlying finding of a violation of Rule 1.5(e), the Court held that the district court also erred in basing a sanction on violation of Rule 8.4(a).
    • The Court held, however, that the district court correctly found a violation of Rule 8.4(d), which prohibits an attorney from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, because “[t]he [settlement program] had explicit rules restricting staff from holding any financial interests in CSSP claims and requiring staff to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest or loss of impartiality concerning their duties.”
    • The Court then held that the district court was free on remand to impose any sanction it saw fit for a Rule 8.4(d) violation, including the one-year suspension from practice in front of the court.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Salazar, 21-11032, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Scott, 21-51084, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Barksdale, Haynes), criminal, search and seizure
    • Affirming conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and upholding district court’s denial of motion to suppress firearm and statements made to arresting officers.
  • Abdallahi v. Garland, 21-60360, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), immigration
    • Denying Mauritanian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing appeal of IJ credibility finding.
  • Hammett v. Woodard, 22-10354, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Barksdale, Haynes), bankruptcy
    • Affirming district court’s overruling of objections and confirmation of Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan.
  • U.S. v. Ulloa-Funez, 22-20141, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Elrod, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Vacating sentence on conviction for illegal reentry, and remanding to amend written judgment to conform to oral pronouncement of sentence.
  • U.S. v. Biegon, 22-40353, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Duncan, Wilson), criminal
    • Affirming dismissal of petition for writ of coram nobis.
  • U.S. v. Marquez, 22-50028, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Melendrez-Soberanes, 22-50057, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.
  • U.S. v. Davila, 22-50136, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Higginson, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 100-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Mendoza-Yerbafria, 22-50455, c/w 22-50500, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry and revocation of supervised release.