December 4, 2023, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Marquette Transportation Co. Gulf-Inland, L.L.C. v. Navigation Maritime Bulgare JSC, 22-30261, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Jones, J. (King, Jones, Duncan), maritime law
    • Affirming the judgment on jury verdict that owner of one vessel involved in a river collision was not negligent; but vacating judgment that other vessel owner was negligent and captain was grossly negligent and remanding for new trial, based on holding that district court instructed the jury to apply the incorrect standard of proof for the claim against the captain.
    • The Court held that the district court erred in determining that general maritime law preempted a Louisiana pilotage law with regard to the claims against the captain at the time of the collision, who was a Louisiana river pilot. “Louisiana law requires any ‘party seeking to hold a pilot acting under his state commission issued in accordance with this Chapter liable for damages or loss occasioned by the pilot’s errors, omissions, fault, or neglect’ to ‘prove by clear and convincing evidence that the damages arose from the pilot’s gross negligence or willful misconduct.’ LA. STAT. ANN. § 34:1137.” The Court held that the district court erroneously found that the preponderance standard of general maritime law preempted this pilotage law clear-and-convincing standard. The Court held that the states retained the right to regulate pilots’ liability as part of their sovereign nature, all the way back to the time of the Lighthouse Act of 1789, and that it had “no difficulty in holding that this Louisiana law falls within the state’s broad power to regulate pilotage.”
    • The Court rejected the arguments of the vessel owner that had been found negligent, that the case should not have been tried to a jury, that evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, and that its expert’s testimony was erroneously limited. Nevertheless, the Court held that “the district court’s erroneous instruction concerning the standard of proof for the claim against Captain Johnson likely influenced the jury’s assessment of liability for the claim against Balkan,” and ordered retrial of the claims against the vessel owner, as well.
  • Robinson v. Lopinto, 22-30310, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Southwick, J. (Davis, Southwick, Oldham), habeas corpus
    • Affirming the denial of habeas relief to state pretrial detainee scheduled for retrial after the state district court declared a mistrial when a poll of jurors showed ten of the twelve would acquit on four of five counts. The petitioner sought habeas relief that the poll should be an effective acquittal and not grounds for mistrial and retrial. However, because there was no argument for acquittal on one of the counts, the court held that “the detainee’s custody pending a retrial is valid. Inasmuch as the function of federal habeas proceedings for state prisoners is to consider whether their custody is in violation of federal law, no relief is available in this case.” Accordingly, the Court did not reach the merits of the issue of whether a non-unanimous vote to acquit constitutes an acquittal.
  • U.S. v. Robinson, 22-30442, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Higginson, J. (Smith, Southwick, Higginson), criminal, sentencing, sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, prosecutorial misconduct
    • Affirming defendant’s convictions for possessing a firearm or ammunition as a convicted felon and attempted obstruction of a federal proceeding, but vacating the term of imprisonment and remanding for a narrow resentencing.
    • The Court held that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the defendant’s convictions, and that the district court did not err in admitting body-camera footage of the victim who the defendant had shot at, and audio and transcripts from jailhouse phone calls between the defendant and the victim.
    • The Court held that there was no error in the district court’s failure to instruct the jury as to prior inconsistent statements, as the requested instruction would have been misleading since none of the prior statements were admitted as prior inconsistent statements to impeach the testimony of the defendant.
    • The Court held that there was nothing improper in prosecutors’ remarks about the safety of the community, given the evidence that the defendant had shot at the victim’s car while her nine-year-old boy was inside; and that in other remarks the prosecutors drew reasonable inferences from evidence in the record.
    • The Court held, however, that the district court judge’s instructions as to the consecutive or concurrent running of the imposed sentence with a sentence imposed in a separate federal proceeding erroneously resulted in 27 extra months of federal prison time, and vacated the sentence with remand for an express finding as to concurrent or consecutive prison time.

Unpublished

  • Barnes v. Vannoy, 22-30122, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jones, Barksdale, Elrod), prisoner suit
    • Reversing dismissal of Louisiana state prisoner’s § 1983 claims for failure to administratively exhaust, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • U.S. v. Turner, 23-10587, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Alvarado, 23-10673, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Willett, Duncan), criminal, compassionate release
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • Thompson v. City of Weatherford, 23-10767, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick), § 1983
    • Affirming dismissal as frivolous of § 1983 claims.