August 29-30, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Spiller v. Harris County, 22-20028, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Dennis, J. (Jones, Dennis, Willett); Willett, J., concurring; Jones, J., dissenting; qualified immunity, municipal liability
    • Reversing summary judgment dismissal on qualified immunity grounds of excessive force claims arising from violent arrest of plaintiff, holding that the defendant officer “failed to show the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact as to both elements of qualified immunity: whether Lindsay violated Spiller’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force; and whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of [the] alleged misconduct.” Affirming qualified immunity dismissal of false arrest and First Amendment retaliation claims, on finding that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for interference with public duties.
    • Judge Willett concurred. He opined about the difficulty of ascertaining whether there are genuine fact disputes in excessive force claims even with video evidence, and then detailed what he saw in the video in this case and compared it with the dissent’s recitation of the facts. “At bottom, while I see the video differently than the dissent, I think our disagreement is a reasonable one. The dissent insists Sergeant Lindsay merely reacted to an ‘assault,’ while I believe that the video tends to corroborate Spiller’s allegation of excessive force—or at minimum confirms there is a material factual dispute. Given our disagreement—a sincere but significant one—I have no heartburn with the notion that the parties’ dispute ‘can go to trial,’ a bedrock constitutional guarantee that the dissent seems to fear will materialize. There, in a solemn United States courtroom, the dissent’s view, if correct, can be vindicated by a jury of Spiller’s and Sergeant Lindsay’s peers—not by three appellate judges playing junior-varsity jury.”
    • Judge Jones dissented.
  • Chisom v. Louisiana, 22-30320, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Engelhardt, J. (joined by Richman, Jones, Smith, Elrod, Southwick, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Oldham, Wilson); Wiener, J., dissenting (joined by Stewart, Graves, Douglas, Ramirez); Haynes, J., dissenting; Higginson, J., dissenting; Voting Rights Act
    • Reversing denial of State’s motion to dissolve 30-year-old consent decree under the VRA regarding state supreme court districts, and rendering judgment in favor of the State.
    • In determining whether the consent decree had been satisfied, the Court observed, “cases involving voting rights are unique: courts considering redistricting plans must devote heightened attention to principles of federalism and the State’s ability to run its own elections.”
    • Judge Wiener dissented. He would find that a recent legislative enactment establishing two majority-minority supreme court districts essentially mooted the motion to dissolve the consent decree; and that the majority, in determining the merits anyway, rewrote one of the provisions of the consent decree that Judge Wiener would find required a future compliance obligation that could not be satisfied.
    • Judge Haynes dissented, and would have ended the analysis at mootness, without reaching the question of whether the consent decree was or was not satisfied.
    • Judge Higginson dissented, and would have remanded to the district court to determine if the new statute had mooted the motion to dissolve the consent decree.
  • U.S. v. Quintanilla, 23-40033, c/w U.S. v. Cuellar, 23-40068, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Engelhardt, Ramirez), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming convictions and sentences for conspiracy to bribe public officials with regard to the reward of public contracts.
  • Barr v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 23-60216, petition for review of SEC order
    • Ramirez, J. (Smith, Engelhardt, Ramirez), securities law, whistleblowers
    • Denying petition for review of SEC order calculating whistleblower award amounts under the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Foster, 23-30288, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Higginson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming convictions of carjacking and use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and 498-month sentence for one defendants and 528-month sentence for other defendant.
  • Edwards v. Intermoor, Inc., 23-30727, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Haynes, Douglas), maritime law
    • Affirming denial of motion to remand to state court, on the basis that the plaintiff was not a Jones Act seaman.
  • U.S. v. Andrade, 23-40111, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Graves, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Medina-Flores, 23-50608, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Haynes, Douglas), criminal, search and seizure
    • Affirming conviction of conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens and transporting undocumented aliens, upholding denial of motion to suppress.
  • U.S. v. Schunior, 23-50741, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute a quantity of actual methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Vanover, 24-10032, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Collier, 24-10033, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Broussard, 24-20052, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Rojas, 24-40037, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Su v. Cactus Canyon Quarries, Inc., 24-50031, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Smith, Dennis), mootness
    • Dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, due to mootness, appeal from grant of preliminary injunction to Department of Labor to enjoin defendant from interfering with mandatory inspections, where preliminary injunction expired by its own terms.
  • U.S. v. Johnson, 24-50069, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Ho, Wilson, Ramirez), criminal, compassionate release
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Rosales-Ramirez, 24-50125, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Campbell, 24-50138, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Ho, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Isby v. Cain, 24-60003, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), habeas corpus
    • Affirming dismissal of sec. 2254 petition as an unauthorized second successive 2254 petition.
  • U.S. v. Wiest, 24-60031, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Robinson, 24-60108, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 36-month sentence for theft of a mail matter by an officer or employee.