October 15, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Martin, 23-30917, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Southwick, J. (Dennis, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 33-month sentence and conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the district court acted appropriately in accepting the Sentencing Guidelines’ commentary defining “large capacity magazine” and that the underlying criminal statute is not unconstitutional; but vacating imposition of discretionary terms for supervised release portion of sentence that were not orally pronounced; and remanding to conform written judgment of sentence to orally pronounced terms.
  • La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 24-50783, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Ho, J. (Ho, Wilson, Ramirez), Ramirez, J., concurring; election law
    • Granting stay pending appeal of district court’s injunction of Texas election law restricting paid “vote harvesting services.” Applying Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 6 (2006), the Court held that the district court had unduly delayed ordering a change to an election law that had been on the books for more than three years, and that courts should not impose such changes on the eve of an election.
    • The Court held that the Purcell standard was particularly applicable here where the injunction only affected vote-harvesting in certain counties, where Texas counties had already started mailing out ballots, and where the merits of the constitutional challenge are “far from entirely clearcut.”
    • Judge Ramirez concurred. “Even where, as here, a district court has issued ‘a thorough order’ explaining why an election law should be enjoined, the Supreme Court’s ‘concern about confusion resulting from court changes to election laws close in time to the election should carry the day in the stay analysis.’ Veasey v. Perry, 769 F.3d 890, 897 (5th Cir. 2014) (Costa, J., concurring). Because of the proximity of the injunction’s issuance to the upcoming election, issuance of a stay is consistent with both Supreme Court and this court’s precedent.”

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Hadley, 24-10162, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Strain, 24-10170, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Smith v. Lumpkin, 24-20040, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), habeas corpus
    • Dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction an appeal of the district court’s administrative closure of habeas proceeding, where district court had interpreted the petitioner’s letter as a § 2254 petition and the petitioner then informed the district court that he was not intending to lodge such a petition.
  • Osazuwa v. Walgreens, 24-20223, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), Title VII
    • Dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction appeal from dismissal of Title VII claims where plaintiff never filed a notice of appeal.
  • U.S. v. Merino-Romero, 23-20599, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Hill, 24-30054, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Jones v. Grapeland Independent School District, 24-40194, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Clement, Higginson), employment, Title VII
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s “shotgun pleading” complaint against school district, school district employees, and the EEOC after he was fired from the school district.
  • U.S. v. Esquivel-Martinez, 23-40660, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Haynes, Wilson), criminal, search and seizure
    • Affirming conviction of conspiracy to transport an undocumented alien within the United States, upholding denial of motion to suppress.
  • Jones v. Texas, 23-40696, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 claim.
  • U.S. v. Rodarte, 24-50067, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 151-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.
  • Montero v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 24-60190, appeal from Tax Court
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), tax
    • Affirming Tax Court’s grant of summary judgment and imposition of fine against taxpayer who made frivolous claim that he is not subject to income tax because he declined to withhold income taxes.
  • In re Klein, 24-98007, direct order (not on appeal from any tribunal)
    • per curiam (Graves, Duncan, Wilson), attorney discipline
    • Ordering reciprocal suspension of attorney from practicing before the Fifth Circuit until such time as he is reinstated as a member in good standing of the Louisiana Bar, when he may then apply for reauthorization to practice in the Fifth Circuit.