Designated for publication
- U.S. v. Clayton, 23-30231, appeal from M.D. La.
- per curiam (King, Ho, Engelhardt), criminal, search and seizure, Miranda rights
- Affirming conviction of possession with intent to distribute heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine, upholding denial of motion to suppress.
- The Court held that the record contained sufficient evidence of probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle, obviating the need to determine if the vehicle was still in the “immediate vicinity” of the home for which the arresting officers had a warrant after the car was driven approximately 250 yards away from the home.
- The Court held that the defendant did not unambiguously invoke his right to be silent prior to providing an incriminating statement to police, when he did not respond to the reading of his Miranda rights and at most might have indicated through body language a desire not to speak.
- Culberson v. Clay County, 23-60310, appeal from N.D. Miss.
- Higginson, J. (Higginbotham, Smith, Higginson), municipal liability, § 1983, qualified immunity
- Affirming dismissal of deliberate indifference claims arising from murder of pretrial detainee by cellmate, dismissing municipal liability claim against County and deliberate indifference claims against individual officers.
- In re Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, 24-10266, petition for writ of mandamus to N.D. Tex.
- Willett, J. (Higginson, Willett, Oldham); Oldham, J., concurring; Higginson, J., dissenting; venue, administrative law
- Granting petition for writ of mandamus, and vacating district court’s order to transfer challenge to rule of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to the District Court for the District of Columbia, which was entered after the plaintiffs had appealed the effective denial of their motion for preliminary injunction. “Once a party properly appeals something a district court has done—here, the effective denial of a preliminary injunction—the district court has zero jurisdiction to do anything that alters the case’s status. Importantly, we are not announcing today a broad rule regarding inter-circuit transfers. Indeed, we do not even reach the question of where this case rightly belongs. Our decision today is exceedingly narrow and procedural, focused not on the correctness of the district court’s transfer order but rather on whether the court had jurisdiction to enter it.”
- Judge Oldham concurred. He would hold that the Court had grounds to issue mandamus even if it reached the merits of the venue-transfer under § 1404(a).
- Judge Higginson dissented. “The district court’s reasoned conclusion that the case ‘does not belong in the Northern District of Texas’ is fact-based and sound. As it notes, the CFPB and ‘[m]ost of the Plaintiffs in this case are also based in Washington D.C.’—not to mention that all the events are tied to Washington, D.C.: The CFPB Rule in question ‘was promulgated in Washington D.C., by government agencies stationed in Washington D.C., and by employees who work in Washington D.C.’ Id. at *3. Conversely, the case has no real, let alone ‘substantial,’ connection to the Northern District of Texas.” As to the plaintiffs’ appeal of the “effective denial” of the preliminary injunction, Judge Higginson would hold that that should be deemed to have stripped the district court of jurisdiction to order transfer: “Worse still, the majority’s grant of mandamus also threatens to impossibly hamstring district courts by effectively declaring that our district judges cannot manage their dockets to sequence threshold questions before difficult merits questions and cannot transfer cases if there are motions pending. Instead, district courts will be deemed to have ‘decided’ merits questions—and will be subject to appellate review—when they simply do not accede to a plaintiff’s insistence for a ruling in less than two weeks from assignment of the case. I have never been a trial judge, but this strikes me as impossible law for us to impose, much less declare as clear and obvious existing law.”
Unpublished
- U.S. v. Marcum, 23-10703, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Ramirez), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming 210-month sentence on conviction of wire fraud.
- Luft v. Department of the Army, 23-10742, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), employment discrimination
- Affirming summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim.
- U.S. v. Caraballo, 23-10780, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Ramirez), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Harris, 23-10890, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Enhgelhardt), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Smith, 23-11013, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Poff, 23-20209, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Smith, Haynes), criminal, restitution, compassionate release
- Affirming denial of defendant’s restitution-based motion; and vacating order denying motion for compassionate release for lack of jurisdiction, and remanding for further proceedings.
- U.S. v. Garcia, 23-20505, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Jolly, Engelhardt, Douglas), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Reese, 23-30567, appeal from M.D. La.
- per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal
- Affirming conviction of receipt of firearms while under a felony indictment and possession of firearms by a person convicted of domestic violence.
- Wolf v. City of Port Arthur, 23-40528, appeal from E.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Willett, Oldham), § 1983
- Affirming denial of motion to reopen § 1983 claim that had been voluntarily dismissed.
- U.S. v. Gonzalez, 23-50193, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Smith, Haynes), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction.
- U.S. v. Bell, 23-50282, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming 170-month sentence on conviction of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, distribution of 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine.
- U.S. v. Matute-Castro, 23-50311, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Guerrero-Pina, 23-50429, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Carranza-Rubio, 23-50547, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
- U.S. v. Ibarra-Mora, 23-50880, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Willett, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
- Taylor v. McDonough, 23-60106, appeal from S.D. Miss.
- per curiam (King, Ho, Engelhardt), Title VII, employment discrimination
- Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s sexual discrimination claims.
- Zuniga-Ayala v. Garland, 23-60118, petition for review of BIA order
- per curiam (Richman, Graves, Wilson), immigration
- Denying Mexican citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing appeal of IJ’s finding of removability due to Texas conviction for delivery of less than one gram of cocaine.
- Amaro v. Garland, 23-60330, petition for review of BIA order
- per curiam (Jolly, Engelhardt, Douglas), immigration
- Denying Cuban citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing appeal of IJ’s denial of his request for equitable tolling and denying as untimely his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings.
Take the Fifth 