October 30-31, 2023, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Terry v. Hooper, 21-30638, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Higginson, J. (Smith, Higginson, Willett), habeas corpus
    • Affirming denial of § 2254 petition challenging the sufficiency of evidence on his Louisiana conviction of juvenile molestation.
  • Antero Resources, Corp. v. Kawcak, 22-10918, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Elrod, J. (Clement, Elrod, Willett), breach of fiduciary duty, offset
    • Affirming damages award on breach of fiduciary duty claim by company against its former operations supervisor, but vacating denial of defendant’s motion to pursue post-trial discovery into company’s settlement with other defendant for purposes of considering whether the defendant was entitled to an offset resulting from that settlement.
  • In re TikTok, Inc., 23-50575, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Southwick, Wilson), mandamus, transfer of venue
    • Granting writ of mandamus to order district court to transfer case to the Northern District of California, finding that the district court’s denial of a motion to transfer was “so patently erroneous that this rare form of relief is warranted.” The Court noted, “This case was brought by a Chinese plaintiff, challenges conduct that took place mostly in China and to a lesser extent in California and rises or falls with proof located outside the Western District of Texas. Under our precedent, denying petitioners’ motion to transfer was a clear abuse of discretion[.]”
  • Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 23-60255, appeal from SEC order
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Southwick, Higginson), securities law, administrative law, First Amendment
    • Granting petition to review SEC rule requiring quarterly disclosure of stock repurchases and rationale for those repurchases, and remanding to SEC to correct deficiencies. The Court held that the rule requiring disclosure of the rationale for repurchases was not impermissibly compelled speech under the First Amendment, because it sought factual and noncontroversial disclosure that satisfied the lower scrutiny requirements under Zauderer. However, the Court held that the SEC failed to respond to the petitioners’ comments during the notice-and-comment period and that response to those comments would have resulted in a change to the rule; and that the SEC failed to substantiate the rule’s benefits.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Aguilar, 23-10590, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Johnson, 23-10626, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Graves, Higginson), criminal, supervised release
    • Affirming revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Caicedo, 23-40225, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Engelhardt, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Moreno, 23-50034, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Eruotor, 23-50099, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Wilson), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Ramirez-Gomez, 23-50455, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentencing on illegal reentry.
  • Saucedo v. Garland, 23-60098, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Dennis, Engelhardt, Wilson), immigration
    • Denying Mexican citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge ordering him removed and denying his application for special rule cancellation of removal.