August 17, 2023, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Cuff, 18-30694, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Jones, J. (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), Oldham, J., dissenting; habeas corpus, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel
    • Reversing in part and affirming in part denial of § 2255 petition; reversing district court’s application of procedural bar to claim of breach of plea agreement by Assistant U.S. Attorneys, but affirming disposition of IAC claim.
    • The Court held that the breach-of-plea agreement was not appropriate for the procedural bar for failure to raise on direct appeal because the sentencing court could not have provided relief on the alleged facts and because the claim, like an IAC claim, required factual development by a district court. Where the alleged prosecutorial misconduct here involved an indictment in Texas court for conduct used in the Louisiana sentencing, where the plea agreement was premised on the lack of any additional indictment, the Court remanded “with instructions to determine (1) whether Cuff or his counsel knew or should have known of the Texas indictment before Cuff’s sentencing and (2) if not, whether Cuff was prejudiced.”
    • The Court affirmed dismissal of the IAC claim, as the IAC claim raised in the appeal was not within the scope of any of the four categories of IAC raised in the § 2255 petition.
    • Judge Oldham dissented. He opined that no factfinding by the district court could change the result that the petitioner cannot show cause and prejudice to overcome his procedural default.
  • U.S. v. Alkheqani, 21-10966, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • deGravelles, J. (Haynes, Engelhardt, deGravelles, by designation), criminal, search and seizure, sentencing, Armed Career Criminal Act
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon, upholding denial of motion to suppress, but reversing district court’s application of ACCA enhancement and vacating sentence, remanding for resentencing.
    • The Court held there was reasonable suspicion to support the traffic stop of the defendant’s vehicle, because “(1) the stop was based on particularized, not generic, information; (2) minor conflicts in eyewitness accounts do not warrant a different finding; and (3) temporal and geographic proximity support a finding of reasonable suspicion.” The Court also held there was no clear error in the district court’s finding that the defendant voluntarily consented to search of his vehicle and home.
    • The Court held that the district court erred in relying solely on the PSR, rather than looking through to the state-court charging documents, in determining whether defendant’s prior convictions were part of one incident or were separate incidents for purposes of the ACCA.
  • U.S. v. Stanford, 22-20388, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Elrod, J. (King, Smith, Elrod), criminal, compassionate release
    • Remanding denial of motion for compassionate release to the district court to explain its reasons. “The touchstone is the facilitation of meaningful review.”
  • Poole v. City of Shreveport, 22-30329, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Wilson, J. (Clement, Oldham, Wilson), qualified immunity
    • Affirming grant of qualified immunity after a bench trial, based on finding that officer could not see both of plaintiff’s hands and therefore reasonably believed plaintiff was reaching for a gun when he shot him four times.
  • Hernandez v. West Texas Treasures Estate Sales, L.L.C., 22-50048, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Graves, J. (Wiener, Graves, Douglas), Americans with Disabilities Act
    • Vacating dismissal of plaintiffs’ ADA claims based on interaction with estate sale operators, and remanding for further proceedings.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Chaves-Saldana, 22-10864, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Johnson, 22-30318, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (King, Graves, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Longhai Desheng Seafood Stuff Co. v. Louisiana Newpack Shrimp Co., 22-30653, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jones, Clement, Haynes), breach of contract
    • Reversing district court’s grant of Rule 59 motion, and rendering judgment reinstating jury verdict, finding that there was no manifest error in jury’s award of relief on an open account claim after it found that there was no contract between the parties.
  • Mark v. Spears, 22-40104, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Duncan, Wilson, Mazzant, by designation), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of prisoner’s § 1983 claims.
  • Ballentine v. Broxton, 22-50437, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Engelhardt, Saldana, by designation), prisoner suit
    • Vacating summary judgment dismissal of prisoner’s § 1983 claims, reversing denial of motion for appointment of counsel, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • U.S. v. Hernandez, 23-10125, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Bustam, 23-50042, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of sentence that did not apply two-level safety-valve reduction.