September 13, 2023, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Lincks, 21-10917, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Southwick, Higginson), Higginson, J., concurring; habeas corpus
    • Affirming denial of § 2255 petition seeking relief from guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine on IAC grounds.
    • The Court held that the petitioner had not forfeited his argument about IAC in the advice given him by counsel as to his guidelines sentencing range, because the pro se petitioner was dealing with confusion caused by a typographical error in the Court’s grant of a COA regarding that issue.
    • The Court held nonetheless that the petitioner could not prevail on the merits of his IAC claim due to “unequivocal and unambiguous statements about his possible sentence” in the plea agreement.
    • The Court held that an appeal of the district court’s evidentiary ruling in denying the petitioner’s motion for discovery did not require a COA, “insofar as it relates to a claim for which a COA is sought or has been granted”; but that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
    • Judge Higginson concurred. While he agreed that the result on the merits of the petitioner’s IAC claim was correct under the Circuit’s precedent, he was nevertheless “apprehensive” about the result of this precedent. “Under this doctrine, it would seem that counsel advising a client on whether to enter a guilty plea discharges his constitutional duty as it pertains to sentencing exposure so long as he tells his client the statutory maximum and refrains from making any guarantee[s] or promise[s]. … Critically, under the permissive Valdez standard, neither the nature, cause, nor magnitude of counsel’s mistake appears to matter.” (Internal footnote, citations, and quotation marks omitted).
  • Walton v. City of Verona, 22-60231, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • Mazzant, J. (Duncan, Wilson, Mazzant, by designation), sovereign immunity, jurisdiction
    • Dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and reversing district court’s denial of sovereign immunity in claims against the City, in wrongful death claims against City and police chief for release of arrestee in two shootings who then subsequently shot and killed plaintiffs’ relative.
    • The Court held that the district court’s ruling as to qualified immunity for the police chief did not fall under the collateral order doctrine, and that it did not have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal of that ruling.
    • As to the City’s appeal of the sovereign immunity ruling, the Court reversed, holding the Mississippi Tort Claims Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity did not extend to claims against the City arising from certain actions of its employees.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Rodriguez, 22-10991, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Barragan, 22-40323, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine.
  • Mason v. Helping Our Seniors, L.L.C., 22-51041, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Willett, Oldham), Title VII
    • Affirming judgment and award of damages and fees to plaintiffs in Title VII retaliatory discharge case.
  • U.S. v. Martinez-Hernandez, 22-51092, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Vacating 41-month sentence for conviction of transporting undocumented immigrants, and remanding for resentencing.
  • U.S. v. Acosta-Estrella, 23-50253, c/w 23-50256, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Haynes, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.