January 2-5, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Ambler v. Nissen, 23-50696, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Voting AGAINST en banc rehearing: Elrod, Stewart, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Douglas, Ramirez, JJ.; voting FOR en banc rehearing: Jones, Smith, Richman, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson, JJ.); qualified immunity
    • Denying en banc rehearing of September 10, 2024, panel opinion (Douglas, J., joined by Wiener, J.; Smith, J., dissenting) dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction officer defendant’s appeal from denial of qualified immunity summary judgment, on basis that summary judgment was denied due to the presence of material fact issues.
  • Silverthorne Seismic, L.L.C. v. Sterling Seismic Services, Ltd., 24-20006, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Clement, Higginson), Higginson, J., dissenting; trade secrets, interlocutory appeal
    • Vacating order granting leave for interlocutory appeal of district court’s pretrial order instructing the parties on how the plaintiff could prove reasonable-royalty damages under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.
    • The Court held, “The parties have not yet gone to trial, and the plaintiff hasn’t yet proven liability. Damages may never come up. The parties do not need our input to proceed, and we would not speed up the litigation by weighing in. The time spent on this appeal would only slow the proceedings. There is no reason to buck the hallmark rule that a party may appeal once and only after final judgment.”
    • Judge Higginson dissented. “The question in this appeal was certified for our review by a veteran district judge who felt compelled to adhere to case law that is out of step with more recent statutory text, as confirmed by two other circuit courts. A unanimous panel of our colleagues agreed to revisit our law, granting permission to appeal. Today, nearly a year later, we vacate and dismiss that grant as ‘imprudent[],’ ante at 5, and ‘unwise[],’ ante at 11, and we return the case to the inquiring district court with no answer. This is a mistake. Because the certified issue is a question of law; because it is decisive for this litigation; because decisions from the other courts of appeals convincingly explain that our half-century-old decision in University Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp., 504 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1974), is inconsistent with statutorily expanded liability in the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016—we can, and should, answer the district court’s question.”
  • U.S. v. Muhammad, 23-60352, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • Haynes, J. (Dennis, Haynes, Ramirez), habeas corpus
    • Reversing dismissal of petitioner’s § 2255 petition as a prohibited successive petition, and remanding for further proceedings.
    • “This case involves an issue of first impression: If a prisoner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition is initially dismissed as too late, but, after that, we recall the mandate in the preceding direct appeal and affirm the conviction, and then the prisoner files another § 2255 habeas corpus petition, is that later habeas petition a ‘second or successive’ habeas which requires an order granting it from the appellate court? 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). The answer is no. If (1) no court has adjudicated a previous § 2255 habeas petition on the merits and (2) we recall the mandate in the direct appeal, we conclude that it resets the count of the prisoner’s habeas petitions to zero.”
  • Pitchford v. Cain, 23-70009, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • Duncan, J. (Haynes, Willett, Duncan), habeas corpus, Batson
    • Reversing grant of petitioner’s habeas petition asserting a Batson challenge, and rendering judgment dismissing petition.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Merino-Juarez, 24-10281, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Davis, 24-10372, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Hernandez-Pacheco, 24-10572, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Graves, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • J.A. Masters Investments v. Beltramini, 23-20292, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Willett, Oldham), fraud, breach of contract, attorneys’ fees
    • Affirming judgment against plaintiff on jury verdict on fraud and breach of contract claims; vacating award of attorneys’ fees, and remanding to district court to determine of fees had been properly segregated.
  • U.S. v. Ventura, 24-40100, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Haynes, Ramirez), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of conspiracy to transport foreign nationals.
  • U.S. v. Trevino-Lerma, 24-40149, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Douglas, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Hamilton v. DeJoy, 24-50597, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Ho, Ramirez), Title VII, employment discrimination
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims.