November 21-25, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Savoie v. Pritchard, 23-30783, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Engelhardt, J. (Dennis, Southwick, Engelhardt), breach of contract, employment, personal jurisdiction
    • Affirming dismissal of Louisiana-resident employee’s breach-of-contract wage payment claim against Virginia-resident employer for lack of personal jurisdiction. “[Defendant] Pritchard contends the fiduciary shield doctrine precludes jurisdiction based on his purely corporate contacts with Louisiana. [Plaintiff] Savoie counters that the fiduciary shield doctrine is dead. Because we find life within it, we affirm.”
    • The Court held that the Louisiana Supreme Court appeared to recognize the existence of the fiduciary shield doctrine under Louisiana law, and therefore held that “contacts made in [an individual defendant’s] corporate capacity do not count against him for purposes of personal jurisdiction unless one of two exceptions apply: (1) the defendant allegedly engaged in a tort for which he may be personally liable, or (2) the plaintiff demonstrates cause to pierce the corporate veil.”
  • Cocroft v. Graham, 24-60086, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Clement, Higginson), First Amendment
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s First Amendment challenge to Mississippi’s near-total ban on advertising of medical marijuana.
    • “The parties agree that the speech at issue is commercial and that the Central Hudson test governs our analysis. As a threshold matter, commercial speech receives no First Amendment protection if the underlying commercial conduct is illegal. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., prohibits activities involving marihuana—including activities involving medical marihuana—nationwide. And the Supremacy Clause means that the CSA is the law in Mississippi regardless of what state law might say. Marihuana is therefore illegal in Mississippi, and the state faces no constitutional obstacle to restricting commercial speech relating to unlawful transactions.” (Internal citations omitted).
  • Capstone Logistics, L.L.C. v. National Labor Relations Board, 23-60513, petition for review of NLRB order
    • Douglas, J. (Southwick, Haynes, Douglas), Haynes, J., dissenting; labor law
    • Denying employer’s petition for review of NLRB order that employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by firing an employee for engaging in protected concerted activity, on holding that the NLRB decision was supported by substantial evidence, and enforcing the NLRB order.
    • Judge Haynes dissented. She would find that the evidence in the record showed that the employee was fired for her discussions about individual issues, not about group/concerted issues.
  • Crawford v. Cain, 20-61019, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Jones, Smith, Stewart, Haynes, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson, JJ.); Richman, J., dissenting (joined by Southwick, Higginson, Douglas, JJ.) (Graves, J., recused; Ramirez, J., not participating in decision); habeas corpus, en banc
    • In a not-actually-“for-the-court” unauthored per curiam, the en banc Court affirmed the denial of habeas relief for the petitioner on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in failing to preserve his Ake claim on direct appeal regarding the violation of his due process right to expert assistance in presenting an insanity defense.
    • The Court held that it “cannot say that every fairminded jurist would disagree with the state court’s decision” that the petitioner’s trial counsel defaulted his Ake claim and that his direct-appeal counsel did not violate the Sixth Amendment in failing to raise this unpreserved error in the direct appeal. The Court also held that there was no prejudice under the second prong of Strickland because, at the time of the petitioner’s rape trial, a different jury had heard and rejected his insanity defense in a related assault trial.
    • Judge Richman dissented. “Reasonably competent trial counsel and reasonably competent appellate counsel would have determined and diligently pursued the rights clearly established by the Supreme Court’s longstanding precedent in Ake v. Oklahoma.”

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Villareal, 24-10074, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Stewart, Ramirez), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 180-month sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Duran, 24-10263, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 84-month sentence for illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Smith, 24-10413, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Hardcastle, 23-11211, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Davis, 23-20553, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Ho, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Espitia, 23-20607, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing, guilty plea
    • Affirming guilty-plea conviction and 324-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and laundering monetary instruments.
  • Fox. v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 24-30051, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), habeas corpus
    • Dismissing as moot, due to his release from custody, of petitioner’s habeas petition challenging the calculation by the Bureau of Prisons of his earned-time credits under the First Step Act.
  • Decou-Snowton v. Jefferson Parish, 24-30079, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), Family and Medical Leave Act, Title VII
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of FMLA and Title VII retaliation claims.
  • U.S. v. Smothers, 24-30281, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Haynes, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence in part and vacating in part, and remanding for amendment of the written judgment to conform conditions of supervised release to the oral pronouncement of the sentence.
  • U.S. v. Johnson, 23-30745, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Haynes, Wilson), criminal, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 80-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marihuana, heroin, and methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Taylor, 23-30813, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Ho, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Marquez-Gonzalez, 24-50346, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Douglas, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Saldivar-Navarro, 23-50764, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Vacating the special condition of defendant’s sentence requiring him to participate in sex offender treatment if recommended by an evaluator and remanding for resentencing in light of the Court’s decision in United States v. Fortino Pimentel-Soto, No. 23-50727, 2024 WL 4692026 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2024).
  • U.S. v. Smith, 24-60133, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal, sentence reduction
    • Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction.
  • U.S. v. Rydell, 24-60196, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Bullock, 23-60408, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Jones, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal, Second Amendment
    • Reversing district court’s dismissal of indictment for possession of a firearm by a felon on an as-applied challenge under the Second Amendment, and remanding for further proceedings.