March 7, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Roland, 22-20588, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Hendrix, J. (Jones, Oldham, Hendrix, by designation), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of fraud and financial crimes arising from real-estate scheme, rejecting arguments that admission of prior-convictions evidence was plain error and that district court abused its discretion in limiting the good-faith defense and denying funding for expert witness.
  • Wood v. Patton, 25-70004, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Smith, J. (Elrod, Smith, Engelhardt), § 1983
    • Affirming dismissal of capital inmate’s § 1983 claim challenging due process viability of Texas’s post-conviction DNA testing statute and denial of motion to stay execution.
  • Holberg v. Guerrero, 21-70010, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Higginbotham, J. (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), Duncan, J., dissenting; Brady violation, habeas corpus
    • Reversing denial of habeas relief, vacating petitioner’s conviction on capital murder charges, and remanding for further proceedings, based on Brady violation where the State failed to disclose that its critical trial witness was a paid informant.
    • “We pause only to acknowledge that 27 years on death row is a reality dimming the light that ought to attend proceedings where a life is at stake, a stark reminder that the jurisprudence of capital punishment remains a work in progress. The death penalty itself has traversed a torturous path in this country, dragging Ms. Holberg along with it. From the return of capital punishment in the Seventies—paired with a veritable flood of habeas petitions—came attendant efforts to temper the flow.1 In the service of federalism and management, Congress enlisted the aid of the lower federal courts by routing review of state decisions to the district courts through the gates of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 199 (AEDPA). Yet capital punishment cannot survive without adherence to the fundamental constitutional girds securing the right to trial by jury. Ms. Holberg’s 27 years on death row is a showcase of the State’s failure to abide by a core structure of prosecution: the Brady doctrine.”
    • Judge Duncan dissented, focusing on the viciousness of the crime scene and his incredulity at a self-defense theory, and opining that the potential impeachment value of the fact that the key prosecution witness had been a paid informant on unrelated cases was immaterial.

Unpublished

  • Nixon v. Dallas County, 24-10082, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Southwick), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of former state pretrial detainee’s § 1983 claim.
  • U.S. v. Johnson, 24-10231, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Haynes, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming revocation of supervised release and 24-month sentence.
  • Martin v. 195th Judicial District Court, 24-10383, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal, removal
    • Affirming remand of criminal matter to state court that had been removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1443.
  • U.S. v. Martinez-Rodriguez, 24-10809, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Stewart, Southwick), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of illegal reentry.
  • Jones v. Strong, 24-20245, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 claims.
  • U.S. v. Follis, 24-20352, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Ho, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Smith, 24-50532, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Stewart, Ramirez), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • Turner v. Oliver, 23-60165, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Davis, Southwick, Ho), § 1983, qualified immunity
    • Affirming qualified immunity dismissal of claims against district attorney by former school principal arising from principal’s termination by the school board after being indicted by district attorney.
  • Barger v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 24-60178, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Graves, Engelhardt, Oldham), insurance
    • Reversing district court’s summary judgment for insurer, holding that it improperly allocated the burden of proof to the homeowner to show a specific named peril or covered event caused damage to roof, vacating dismissal, and remanding for further proceedings.