Take the Fifth

Designated for publication

• U.S. v. Rao, 23-10670, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • Higginson, J. (Smith, Clement, Higginson), criminal, sentencing, sufficiency of evidence,
  • Affirming convictions of substantive healthcare in scheme to defraud TRICARE by ordering unnecessary toxicology and DNA cancer screening tests, finding sufficient evidence to support convictions, finding no plain error in district court’s exclusion of testimony regarding statements purportedly made to defendant by the leader of the fraud scheme that the scheme had been vetted by an attorney, and finding no error in the calculation of the loss amount under the Sentencing Guidelines as part of his 48-month sentence.

• Ondrusek v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 23-10892, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • Higginson, J. (Higginbotham, Stewart, Higginson), National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, ripeness, standing
  • Reversing dismissal of NEPA and Clean Water Act APA claims against the Corps of Engineers, affirming dismissal of claims against City of Dallas, and remanding for further proceedings on plaintiffs’ NEPA/CWA/APA claims arising from attempted condemnation of their property for implementation of the Dallas Floodway Extension.
  • “With respect to NEPA, the plaintiffs alleged that the Corps was required to prepare another [Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement] to account for additional information, including changes to engineering guidance following Hurricane Katrina. They further alleged that the Corps did not complete the analysis required under 40 C.F.R. § 230.11—a regulation implementing § 404 of the CWA—including an investigation of ‘secondary effects’ on the Trinity River ecosystem.”
  • The Court held that the plaintiffs’ challenge was ripe because the “Corps’ purported failure to comply with its NEPA obligations presents a present controversy that requires no ‘further factual development.’ … [A] plaintiff who sues on a procedural right to challenge a failure to prepare an environmental impact statement may maintain a suit even though the [major federal action] will not be completed for many years.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court also rejected the argument that the plaintiffs’ harm was too speculative, holding that, for a NEPA challenge, plaintiffs need only allege “a plausible theory of a risk to the plaintiffs’ environmental interests.”
  • The Court also held, largely on the same analysis, that the plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III standing. “[W]hile some degree of contingency is involved in alleging injury based on the unassessed risks of agency action, the plaintiff need not establish with any certainty that the procedural defect will cause harm. Nor does the fact that the DFE may not be completed for some time make this case unsuited for adjudication.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As to standing, the Court also held that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged traceability and redressability.
  • The Court held that statutory standing had been established against the Corps for the APA/NEPA/CWA claims; but that, because the plaintiffs had disclaimed at oral argument that they were not seeking in invoke federal jurisdiction to challenge the City’s condemnation, they need not disturb the dismissal of the claim against the City or examine the difficult questions regarding the Anti-Injunction Act.

• U.S. v. Wesley, 23-11185, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • Higginson, J. (Smith, Clement, Higginson), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming application of sentencing enhancement for maintaining premises for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance. “[T]he undisputed facts establish that Wesley sold drugs from the residence multiple times, used the residence as a stash house, and had a key to the residence.”

• U.S. v. Morales, 24-20088, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • Elrod, C.J. (Elrod, Higginbotham, Southwick), criminal, sentence reduction
  • Affirming denial of motion reduce 188-month sentence for conspiracy to operate an illegal money-transmitting business and conspiracy to launder funds, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), on basis that defendant could not meet all of the provision’s criteria. “Because Morales received an aggravating-role adjustment, he is ineligible for the reduction even though he did not engage in a continuing criminal enterprise.”

• Azhar Chaudhary Law Firm, P.C. v. Ali, 23-20362, c/w 23-20464, c/w Riverstone Resort, L.L.C. v. Ali, 23-20498, c/w Ali v. Azhar Chaudhary Law Firm, P.C., 23-20507, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • Smith, J. (Smith, Clement, Higginson), bankruptcy, timeliness
  • Dismissing appeals by debtor, owner of debtor, and that owner’s law firm, as not being parties aggrieved by bankruptcy court’s judgment dismissing creditor’s claims against debtor, owner, and owner’s law firm as untimely; and on creditor’s appeal from order, reversing dismissal on basis that district court had not considered fully whether to equitably toll the limitations period, and remanding for further proceedings.

• Martinez v. City of Rosenberg, 23-20539, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • Higginbotham, J. (Higginbotham, Stewart, Higginson), Higginson, J., dissenting; qualified immunity, municipal liability
  • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims alleging arrest without probable cause and excessive force, arising from arrest of plaintiff for walking on the wrong side of the street, as barred against officer defendants by qualified immunity, and as failing to state a Monell claim as against the City.
  • Judge Higginson dissented from the qualified immunity affirmance. “‘[J]aywalking is endemic but rarely results in arrest.’ Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391, 407 (2019). If you watch the video of the interaction at issue here, you will see the following: At 4:35:02 P.M. on February 6, 2019, Alejandro Martinez is walking towards his home in Rosenburg, Texas on a residential street without sidewalks. At 4:35:17 P.M., Officer Ryan Cantu pulls over, jumps out of his car, and calls ‘let me talk to you’ to Martinez, who walks back towards him from about ten feet away. At 4:36:29 P.M., Martinez is on the ground, shouting ‘Please! You’re hurting my arm! You’re hurting my arm!’ In that brief window of time, Officer Cantu has slammed him to the ground. Does the law of this country countenance this kind of force from those charged with protecting their communities? Because Martinez was walking on the wrong side of that street, in violation of state law, and because he turned his shoulder slightly, as if to walk away—but did not walk away—the Defendants argue that it does. The majority seems to agree, stating that Officer Cantu’s force was ‘reasonable.’ I respectfully dissent.”

• Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 17-20545, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Elrod, Davis, Jones, Smith, Stewart, Richman, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson, Douglas) (Elrod, C.J., concurring separately) (Davis, J., concurring, joined by Stewart, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Douglas) (Ho, J., in support of dismissing rehearing en banc as improvidently granted) (Jones, J., dissenting, joined by Smith, Richman, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson) (Richman, J., dissenting) (Oldham, J., dissenting, joined by Jones, Smith, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Wilson) (Ramirez, J., not participating in decision); Clean Air Act, standing, en banc
  • En banc Court affirming district court judgment, as the original panel had done in August 2022 (Costa, J., joined by Davis, J.; Oldham, J., dissenting), affirming Clean Air Act penalties, as well as standing of plaintiffs to seek redress for Clean Air Act violations by Exxon at its Baytown, Texas complex.
  • “The en banc court heard oral argument in this matter in May 2023. That was more than eighteen months ago. Moreover, the parties in this case have already endured multiple appeals and remands back to the district court, over the course of nine years. Another remand would mean that the appellate proceedings in this matter will have delayed resolution of this case by over a decade. Justice delayed is justice denied. Had we known that it would take a year and a half after en banc oral argument to issue an opinion, we would not have granted en banc rehearing. We accordingly AFFIRM the judgment of the district court, dated March 2, 2021.” (Footnotes omitted). 167 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions followed this one-paragraph “per curiam.”
  • Chief Judge Elrod concurred separately in a footnote to the per curiam order “because I believe that our experienced district court colleague Judge Hittner’s most recent opinion got it right.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “So too did the panel majority opinion in Exxon III, which affirmed Judge Hittner. I would accordingly support reinstating the Exxon III panel majority opinion, which explains far more eloquently than I could why the district court was correct.”
  • Judge Davis concurred, and would affirm the district court for additional reasons. “The principal issue before the en banc Court is whether Plaintiffs’ members, who live, work, and recreate near Exxon’s facility, have a sufficient personal stake in curtailing Exxon’s ongoing and future unlawful emissions of hazardous pollutants. We conclude that the district court correctly held that Plaintiffs established standing for each of their claims and did not abuse its discretion in awarding a penalty of $19.95 million against Exxon to deter it from committing future violations.” (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted).
  • Judge Ho issued a separate opinion explaining that he would have had the en banc Court not enter an opinion but to have dismissed the en banc rehearing as improvidently granted. “Had I been a member of the three-judge panel in this case, I would have voted to vacate and remand. But because no one on the en banc court has been able to garner a majority in support of their views, I would dismiss the order granting rehearing en banc as improvidently granted, and reinstate the prior decisions of the three-judge panel.”
  • Judge Jones dissented. “By a one-vote margin, the en banc court affirms a multimillion-dollar judgment against Exxon in a Clean Air Act citizen suit for civil penalties. So did the panel whose opinion was vacated for en banc rehearing. But only one judge on this 17-member en banc court defends the vacated opinion’s reasoning. We are split on different rationales that would have led to dramatically different outcomes on two critical issues. Eight of us dissent and would hold that plaintiffs failed to support Article III standing with proof that their injuries were fairly traceable to Exxon’s permit violations; and we would disavow prior circuit precedent that inaccurately interpreted the ‘economic benefit’ component of the penalty statute. 42 U.S.C. 7413(e)(1). Seven judges would have approved a much higher judgment but ‘compromised’ on what the district court decided. Two judges chart independent paths to affirm the district court. This is no way for an en banc court to function. This dissent explains why the ‘majority’ result is procedurally wrong and substantively disastrous for future litigants. And, as shown by what the competing merits opinions might have been, the issues before us epitomized the kinds of disputes that en banc courts ought to resolve with reasoned decisions.”
  • Judge Richman dissented. She would have reversed on the merits. In addition, “As to the per curiam opinion issued today, I submit that affirming the district court’s 2021 judgment on the basis that ‘[j]ustice delayed is justice denied’ is not a cognizable legal principle under the circumstances of this case. What should have occurred is to recognize that the en banc court did thoroughly consider the issues presented by ExxonMobil on appeal, and a majority of the seventeen-member en banc court could not agree upon the judgment that should be entered. Application of well-recognized principles of appellate law would dictate that the district court’s 2021 judgment must be affirmed because a majority of the court did not agree to reverse or modify that judgment.” (Footnotes omitted).
  • Judge Oldham dissented. “In sports and war, defeat comes to the first side to give up. In law, apparently, that is not true. This is an important case that impacts not only Exxon but also standing doctrine and environmental law more generally. Three-judge panels of our court have heard it three times. We granted en banc rehearing presumably because a majority of active judges recognized the inadequacy of the panels’ decisions. After two years of en banc deliberations, here is how everything shakes out. Eight members of the en banc court support Judge Jones’s rule to vacate. Seven support Judge Davis’s rule to affirm. Chief Judge Elrod supports the district court’s rule and thus would also affirm. Judge Ho—the ninth vote for today’s judgment—supports none of this. But rather than completing the task and choosing a legal rule (any legal rule), today’s en banc majority throws up its hands and announces a non sequitur: ‘We have taken too long trying to make up our minds, so, oh well—affirmed.’ Twenty-first century jurists write opinions to explain judgments. And those opinions carry enormous significance. Here, an opinion should have told parties throughout our circuit what to expect from citizen suits under the Clean Air Act. One of the virtues of a legal opinion is that it lets lawyers, jurists, and the public grade our work. But what is the world supposed to make of today’s rationale? What is the magic number that appears on the majority’s shot clock, such that a case pending for X days warrants we-give-up affirmance? In which penumbra or emanation should we look to find the legal authority for that shot clock? And perhaps most importantly, why is it Exxon’s fault that nine members of this court could not agree by the hidden deadline? All we know is that today’s judgment rests on frustration with the process of drafting a majority opinion. The majority says its inability to write an opinion necessitates its judgment. Not only does that tail-wagging-the-dog approach undermine confidence in the judgment. It also gives primacy to the opinion—in contravention of millennia of legal tradition.”

• U.S. v. Keller, 23-40338, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • Elrod, C.J. (Elrod, Dennis, Higginson), criminal, search and seizure
  • Affirming conviction of transporting an alien unlawfully present in the United States, upholding denial of motion to suppress based on indication behavior of canine dog in search of vehicle.

• U.S. v. Ashley, 23-40482, appeal from E.D. Tex.
  • Elrod, C.J. (Elrod, Wiener, Wilson), criminal, sentencing, sufficiency of evidence
  • Affirming conviction on ten counts of wire and mail fraud, vacating conviction on five counts for lack of sufficient evidence, vacating sentence incorporating life-sentence enhancement, and remanding for resentencing.

• Diaz v. Cantu, 24-50088, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • Southwick, J. (Dennis, Southwick, Engelhardt), § 1983
  • Reversing district court’s denial of motion to dismiss claims against county commissioners for bystander liability arising from detention of plaintiff on order of defendant county commissioner as being in contempt of the commission for allegedly heckling during a commission meeting; but affirming denial of motion to dismiss false imprisonment claims, and remanding for further proceedings.

• Hall v. UiPath, Inc., 23-50651, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • Higginson, J. (Smith, Clement, Higginson), Age Discrimination in Employment Act
  • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s claims of retaliation under the ADEA, because plaintiff “failed to challenge the district court’s determination that UiPath has offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action.”

• Siders v. City of Brandon, 23-60381, appeal from S.D. Miss.
  • Wiener, J. (Smith, Wiener, Douglas), First Amendment
  • Affirming district court’s denial of preliminary injunction of city ordinance against protesting or demonstrating near amphitheater, in claim brought by plaintiff who sought to “share the gospel” outside amphitheater.
  • The Court held that the plaintiff’s speech was constitutionally protected; that the sidewalk area outside the amphitheater was a traditional public forum; that the ordinance was content-neutral; that the ordinance was narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest under intermediate scrutiny; and that ample alternative channels of communication for the plaintiff’s speech exist.

• U.S. v. Butler, 23-60594, appeal from S.D. Miss.
  • Elrod, C.J. (Elrod, Higginbotham, Southwick), criminal, sentencing, Armed Career Criminal Act
  • Affirming sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, holding that there was harmless error in district court’s application of ACCA-enhanced sentence where jury had not resolved the ACCA “different occasions” inquiry. “While we acknowledge that Erlinger vacated our prior precedent authorizing the sentencing judge to conduct the ACCA ‘different occasions’ inquiry, any rational jury would have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Butler committed her previous serious drug offenses on different occasions based on the entire record.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

• Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 21-60626, on petition for review of SEC order
  • Oldham, J. (joined by Elrod, Jones, Smith, Richman, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Wilson), Higginson, J., dissenting (joined by Stewart, Dennis, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Douglas, Ramirez); administrative law, en banc
  • In en banc rehearing of October 18, 2023, panel opinion (Higginson, J., joined by Stewart, Dennis), reversing course and granting petition for review of SEC order approving rules proposed by Nasdaq that would require companies listed on its stock exchange to disclose information about their board members, as well as a rule that would give certain companies access to a board recruiting service, designed to achieve greater board diversity on companies traded on the exchange; and vacating the rule. The en banc Court held that the “diversity rules cannot be squared with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.” The en banc majority also held that the major questions doctrine would support the decision.
  • Judge Higginson dissented. “The SEC approved the Rule because the reviewing scheme that Congress created doesn’t permit the SEC to displace Nasdaq’s private business judgment—informed by investor behavior—with agency policy priorities.”

Unpublished

• U.S. v. Keihn, 24-10168, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Meers, 24-10180, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Stapleton, 24-10328, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming sentence on revocation of supervised release.

• U.S. v. Benzenhafer, 24-10532, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Elrod, Smith, Duncan), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• Powell v. Lumpkin, 24-10702, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas), habeas corpus
  • Dismissing for lack of jurisdiction appeal from district court order construing Rule 60(b) motion to set aside order of Texas appellate court denying state post-conviction relief as a § 2254 petition and requiring the filing of the petition on the proper form.

• Ramos v. Erwin, 24-20164, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), qualified immunity
  • Affirming denial of motion to dismiss false arrest and excessive force claims on qualified immunity grounds.

• Daniels v. Cement Masons Pension Fund for Northern California, 23-20595, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Smith, Clement, Wilson), ERISA, timeliness
  • Affirming dismissal of claim for benefits under ERISA plan as time-barred.

• U.S. v. Handy, 24-30400, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• Guidry v. HUD Church Point Housing Authority, 23-30772, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), Fair Housing Act, § 1982, § 1983
  • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of claims arising from eviction.

• U.S. v. Guerrero, 24-40285, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Ho, Wilson, Ramirez), criminal, sentencing
  • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from denial of defendant’s Rule 36 motion to correct a purported clerical error in judgment, and sua sponte correction of judgment to reflect consecutive rather than concurrent sentences.

• U.S. v. Abram, 24-40324, appeal from E.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Wiener, Ho, Ramirez), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Iraheta-Alvarez, 24-50244, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Kamau, 24-10513, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Parker, 23-11174, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal
  • Affirming as constitutional conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

• U.S. v. Dominguez-Soto, 24-20030, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• Villalobos v. Clear Blue Insurance Co., 24-20125, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Jones, Dennis, Southwick), insurance
  • Affirming summary judgment in favor of insurer in coverage dispute.

• U.S. v. Jorgensen, 23-20248, c/w 23-20283, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Ho, Wilson, Ramirez), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• Kelly v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 24-30284, appeal from E.D. La.
  • per curiam (Jones, Dennis, Southwick), foreclosure, collateral estoppel
  • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims on basis of collateral estoppel.

• U.S. v. Claros-Amaya, 24-40006, appeal from E.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Richman, Douglas, Ramirez), criminal, sentence reduction
  • Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction.

• U.S. v. Montano, 24-40313, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Miguel-Limon, 24-40407, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Garcia, 24-50554, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal, sentencing, Double Jeopardy
  • Vacating sentence, holding that multiple convictions and sentences for simultaneous possession of two firearms violated the Double Jeopardy clause, and remanding for dismissal of one of the convictions and for resentencing.

• Platino-Bargas v. Garland, 21-60941, petition for review of BIA order
  • per curiam (Davis, Graves, Wilson), immigration
  • Granting petition to review BIA order, and remanding case to BIA for further consideration of appeal from IJ’s denial of application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT.

• Pierce v. Amerifield, Inc., 24-10040, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Davis, Graves, Wilson), sanctions
  • Dismissing appeal as sanction for appellant’s counsel’s repeated failure to comply with Court’s rules and directives in the prosecution of an appeal.

• U.S. v. Quezada, 24-10211, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Davis, Smith, Higginson), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming 100-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.

• U.S. v. Ajayi, 24-10241, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal, compassionate release
  • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.

• Triplett v. LeBlanc, 24-30068, appeal from M.D. La.
  • per curiam (Smith, Graves, Engelhardt), prisoner suit
  • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of Louisiana state prisoner’s § 1983 claim.

• U.S. v. Anderson, 24-30287, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon.

• U.S. v. Thompson, 24-30362, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Davis, 24-50612, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal, pretrial detention
  • Dismissing as moot appeal from denial of motion for pretrial release.

• U.S. v. Romero-Trejo, 23-50622, c/w 23-50624, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming 57-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.

• U.S. v. Hallmark, 23-50886, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Wiener, Ho, Ramirez), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• Voskanyan v. Garland, 24-60103, petition for review of BIA order
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), immigration
  • Denying in part and dismissing in part Armenian citizen’s petition for review of BIA decision denying his motions for reconsideration and reopening.

• Trujillo-Perez v. Garland, 24-60262, petition for review of BIA order
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), immigration
  • Denying Cuban citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his request to terminate proceedings and ordering him removed.

• U.S. v. Sternadel, 24-10422, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• Pigott v. Gintz, 23-30879, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Wilson, Douglas, Vitter, by designation), qualified immunity
  • Reversing in part and affirming in part summary judgment granting qualified immunity to officer defendant on plaintiffs’ excessive force and unreasonable seizure claims.

• U.S. v. Paredes-Hinojosa, 24-50319, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.

• U.S. v. Zubiate, 24-50368, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal, compassionate release
  • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.

• U.S. v. Delgado, 23-50913, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Richman, Douglas, Ramirez), criminal, guilty plea
  • Affirming guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to import a controlled substance, conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, conspiracy to transport stolen vehicles in interstate and foreign commerce, and transportation of stolen vehicles in interstate and foreign commerce; rejecting argument that district court erred in denying motion to withdraw plea and in failing to hold a competency hearing.

• Alvarez-Rapalo v. Garland, 24-60294, petition for review of BIA order
  • per curiam (Elrod, Haynes, Duncan), immigration
  • Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

• Zhang v. Allen, 24-10429, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), § 1983
  • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s civil rights claims arising from denial of wife’s immigration petition.

• U.S. v. Farris, 24-10465, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.