September 8-11, 2023, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Reyna, 22-20163, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Higginson, J. (Smith, Southwick, Higginson), criminal, supervised release
    • Affirming imposition of 15 “standard conditions” for terms of supervised release from district court’s Standing Order, where oral pronouncement included that the supervised release would be “subject to the standard conditions” but did not otherwise expressly articulate those conditions.
  • Self v. BPX Operating Co., 22-30243, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Elrod, J. (Dennis, Elrod, Ho), Dennis, J., dissenting; mineral law
    • Certifying to the Louisiana Supreme Court the question of whether the civil law concept of negotiorum gestio is applicable in the face of the state’s mineral code articles to allow an operator to recover post-production costs from holders of unleased mineral interests within a forced pooling unit.
    • Judge Dennis dissented. “This case is straightforward. La. R.S. 30:10(A)(3), part of Louisiana’s oil and gas conservation law, allows a unit operator to unilaterally sell production under specific conditions and imposes a specific duty of repayment to the owner. Negotiorum gestio, by contrast, is a traditional civilian doctrine, codified at La. Civ. Code art. 2292, that allows one person to manage the property of another if certain circumstances are met. Not only are La. R.S. 30:10(A)(3) and article 2292 distinct legal regimes with different requirements and different duties, they are necessarily incompatible. A unit operator who sells an owner’s production under the statutory authority of La. R.S. 30:10(A)(3) cannot be a gestor as defined in article 2292, because a gestor, as the codal article provides, is one who acts ‘without authority.’ In certifying the question of whether a unit operator acting under the authority of § 30:10(A)(3) may simultaneously act as a gestor under article 2292, the majority disregards not only the plain text of article 2292 but also basic rules of statutory interpretation. Because the answer is clear that negotiorum gestio cannot apply, I find certification to the Louisiana Supreme Court inappropriate.”
  • Phillips v. L. Brands Service Co., 22-30245, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Higginson, J. (Richman, King, Higginson), personal tort
    • Affirming summary judgment against plaintiff on claims of defamation, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, arising from termination and arrest on accusations of fraud and felony theft.
  • Martinez-De Umana v. Garland, 22-60340, petition for review of BIA order
    • Stewart, J. (Jones, Stewart, Duncan), immigration
    • Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision that she and her two daughters are ineligible for immigration relief on any ground.
  • Missouri v. Biden, 23-30445, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Clement, Elrod, Willett), First Amendment
    • Affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating in part, and modifying preliminary injunction of various federal bodies’ actions in encouraging removal of posts and deplatforming of social media users in efforts to address misinformation on social media.
    • The Court held that the individual plaintiffs demonstrated injury-in-fact, for standing purposes, in their attestations of self-censorship. The Court also held that this injury was fairly traceable to the federal defendants’ actions, even though there was the intervening decision by the social media platforms as to whether to accede to the federal defendants’ encouragement. The Court held that the state plaintiffs demonstrated injury because they rely on the social media postings to monitor their citizens’ concerns; “[t]his right to listen is ‘reciprocal’ to the State Plaintiffs’ right to speak and constitutes an independent basis for the State Plaintiffs’ standing here.”
    • The Court held that the government bodies’ actions could be an unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights where it coerced or strongly encouraged the censorship of the social media platforms. The Court held that the White House, Surgeon General’s office, and FBI each likely coerced and strongly encouraged censorship. The Court held that the CDC, while likely not rising to the level of coercion, strongly encouraged censorship of posts. The Court held that there was likely not First Amendment-infringing conduct by the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, or the State Department.
    • Under the preliminary injunction as modified, the enjoined defendants “cannot coerce or significantly encourage a platform’s content-moderation decisions. Such conduct includes threats of adverse consequences—even if those threats are not verbalized and never materialize—so long as a reasonable person would construe a government’s message as alluding to some form of punishment. That, of course, is informed by context (e.g., persistent pressure, perceived or actual ability to make good on a threat). The government cannot subject the platforms to legal, regulatory, or economic consequences (beyond reputational harms) if they do not comply with a given request. See Bantam Books, 372 U.S. at 68; Okwedy, 333 F.3d at 344. The enjoined Defendants also cannot supervise a platform’s content moderation decisions or directly involve themselves in the decision itself. Social-media platforms’ content-moderation decisions must be theirs and theirs alone.”

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Sincleair, 22-10452, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Wiener, J. (Wiener, Graves, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Vacating 210-month sentence for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine, and remanding for resentencing.
  • U.S. v. Smith, 22-10795, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Stewart, Duncan), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • Frank v. Parnell, 22-30408, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Graves, Douglas), qualified immunity
    • Vacating summary judgment dismissal of excessive force claims on qualified immunity grounds, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • U.S. v. Rodriguez, 22-40235, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Engelhardt, Oldham), criminal, search and seizure, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 300-month sentence for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
  • Looper v. Jones, 22-40579, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Willett, Engelhardt, Oldham), Bivens claim
    • Affirming dismissal of federal inmate’s Bivens claims.
  • Contreras-Gomez v. Garland, 22-60647, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Stewart, Dennis, Willett), immigration
    • Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing an appeal from a denial by the immigration judge (“IJ”) of Contreras-Gomez’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
  • U.S. v. Gonzalez, 23-10038, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Vasquez, 23-10073, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Drayton v. United Airlines, Inc., 23-20017, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Engelhardt, Wilson), personal tort
    • Affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s personal injury claim.
  • U.S. v. Hackney, 23-20127, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal
    • Affirming convictions for production and possession of child pornography.
  • Sylvester v. Chaffe McCall, L.L.P., 23-30003, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Higginson, J. (Smith, Southwick, Higginson), bankruptcy
    • Affirming bankruptcy court’s award of fees to bankruptcy trustee’s law firm.
  • U.S. v. Acosta-Gonzalez, 23-40165, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Escobedo, 23-40264, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Williams v. Mississippi, 23-60180, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Haynes, Douglas), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of Mississippi state prisoner’s sec. 1983 claims.