May 21, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Naranjo, 22-50938, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Southwick, J. (Southwick, Engelhardt, Wilson), criminal, First Step Act
    • Affirming denial of a second motion for sentence reduction under the First Step Act filed by defendant serving concurrent 360-month sentences for multiple drug conspiracy offenses involving both crack and powder cocaine and a consecutive 120-month sentence for using and possessing a semiautomatic weapon in furtherance of a drug crime.
    • The Court first held that the district court was incorrect in holding that it did not have jurisdiction over the defendant’s second 404 motion under the First Step Act, holding that § 404(c) of the FSA was not a jurisdictional bar, but a claim-processing rule. “To be clear, a claim-processing rule can be mandatory even if it is not jurisdictional. … If not raised, a claim-processing rule can be waived or forfeited. A jurisdictional provision cannot.” (Internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court held that, because the Government had not waived § 404(c) in this instance, it still acted to bar the defendant’s second motion, though not as a lack of jurisdiction.
  • CLO Holdco, Ltd. v. Kirschner, 23-10660, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Haynes, J. (Smith, Haynes, Douglas), bankruptcy
    • Affirming order denying creditor’s second amended proof of claim that was filed after the debtor’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan was confirmed.
    • “We hold that in circumstances like the case at bar—a post-confirmation amendment—more is required [than the showing required for a post-bar-date/pre-confirmation proof of claim]. To be explicit, by ‘more’ we mean ‘compelling circumstances.’ Post-confirmation amendments warrant a heightened showing because a confirmed plan of reorganization is equivalent to a final judgment in civil litigation. … This potential res judicata effect justifies ratcheting up the legal standard because post confirmation amendments may ‘mak[e] the plan infeasible,’ ‘disrupt the orderly process of adjudication,’ and ‘alter the distribution[s] to other creditors.'” (Internal citations omitted).

Unpublished

  • Versaggi v. KLS Martin, L.P., 21-20547, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Elrod, Oldham), Elrod, J., dissenting in part; Americans with Disabilities Act
    • Affirming summary judgment for employer on employee’s ADA claims that the employer failed to provide proper accommodations for her diagnosed anxiety disorder brought on by the criminal stalking of the employee by a co-employee’s girlfriend that resulted in her constructive discharge when she had to resign from her job.
    • Judge Elrod dissented in part. While she would agree with the summary judgment dismissal of hostile-work-environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge claims, she would vacate the summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate claim, which had been dismissed on the basis that the plaintiff’s notice of her need for accommodations had been insufficient.
  • U.S. v. Silva, 23-10909, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Danmola, 23-11168, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Martinez, 23-50296, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Smith, Dennis), criminal, sentencing
    • Dismissing in part and affirming in part consecutive sentences for conviction of illegal reentry and for revocation of supervised release.