February 2, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Duffey, 22-10265, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Wilson, J. (Southwick, Engelhardt, Wilson), criminal, First Step Act, habeas corpus
    • Affirming denial of sentence reduction under the First Step Act in defendants’ successive § 2255 petition.
    • The Court held that § 403 of the First Step Act was not applicable to reduce the mandatory minimum sentence where the initial sentence had been imposed prior to the enactment of the First Step Act, though the resentencing after vacatur and remand of the initial sentence occurred after the effective date of the Act. The Court held that, under the plain language of the statute, the initial sentence was a sentence that had been “imposed,” even if it was subsequently vacated and subject to a remand for resentencing. “If Congress meant for the First Step Act’s retroactivity bar to apply only to valid sentences, it could easily have said so.”
  • Lewis v. Bickham, 23-30086, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (King, Willett, Douglas), double jeopardy, habeas corpus
    • Reversing denial of § 2254 petition, and remanding for issuance of the writ, based on holding that petitioner had been subjected to double jeopardy after his first two trials resulted in mistrials and he was convicted of aggravated battery at a third trial.
    • The petitioner’s first trial ended in a hung jury, upon which the trial court declared a mistrial. The trial court declared a mistrial for the second trial after two jurors expressed concerns about their personal calendars after the jury had been empaneled and sworn. “If a trial court declares a mistrial over a defendant’s objection, the Double Jeopardy Clause will bar a future trial unless there is a ‘manifest necessity’ for the mistrial.” (Citation omitted).
    • The Court held that jeopardy attaches for a jury trial once the jury is empaneled and sworn, but that since the trial court appeared to have not realized that jeopardy had attached (because it mistakenly was considering the standard for a bench trial, where jeopardy does not attach until the first witness is sworn) then the Court’s appellate deference was lessened and it “must resolve all doubts in favor of the accused.”
    • The Court then held that the scheduling concerns of the two jurors–consisting of a potential work conflict for one and the potential difficulty with child care for the other–“fall short of our standard for manifest necessity.” The Court also held that the trial court abused its discretion in not considering alternatives to a mistrial, such as continuing the trial to non-consecutive days.

Unpublished

  • Johnson v. Ansari, 23-10288, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Engelhardt, Douglas), prisoner suit
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s deliberate indifference claims.
  • U.S. v. Vasquez, 23-10711, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Engelhardt, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Gonzales, 23-10760, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Southwick, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Barrington v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., 23-30343, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Engelhardt, Wilson), expert witness
    • Affirming summary judgment in favor of defendants in Deepwater Horizon B3 case upon exclusion of plaintiff’s general causation expert.
  • U.S. v. Booth, 23-50079, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence imposed on conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Guzman-Avila, 23-50576, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Southwick, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Gonzales-Landeros, 23-50631, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Engelhardt, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Wiley, 23-60068, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Douglas), criminal, timeliness
    • Affirming district court’s denial of motion for ability to file a late notice of appeal from guilty-plea conviction of drug offense.
  • Zheng v. Garland, 23-60235, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jolly, Engelhardt, Douglas), immigration
    • Denying Chinese citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing her appeal and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal.
  • Elvir-Lopez v. Garland, 23-60292, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Dennis, Wilson, Ramirez), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order upholding the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.