Take the Fifth

Designated for publication

• U.S. v. Goody, 23-20471, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Ramirez), criminal, sentencing, Second Amendment
  • Affirming conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • Joseph Terrell Goody, a known gang member with a lengthy criminal record, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm after police discovered a loaded rifle hidden in a guitar case during a traffic stop. Officers initially pulled Goody over for traffic violations and found drugs in the car. When they asked him to step out, he resisted arrest until his brother intervened, removing the guitar case from the car and hiding it in a nearby house. A subsequent search revealed the weapon, and Goody pled guilty to violating federal firearms laws. He was sentenced to 57 months in prison and two years of supervised release, which included a condition prohibiting association with gang members.
  • On appeal, Goody challenged the constitutionality of his conviction and one supervised-release condition. He argued that the felon-in-possession statute violated his Second Amendment rights and principles of equal protection, but the Fifth Circuit rejected these claims, reaffirming prior rulings that the statute is constitutional. Goody also contended that the condition barring gang association was unconstitutionally vague, but the court upheld it under plain-error review, noting that similar conditions have been widely accepted by other courts and do not violate established legal standards.

• Gilchrist v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., 22-50257, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Jones, Richman, Ho), Fair Labor Standards Act
  • Reversing district court and remanding with instructions to dismiss FLSA claims on the basis that plaintiffs were highly compensated employees exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirement.
  • John Gilchrist and Byron Brockman, former employees of Schlumberger Technology Corp., sued the company for failing to pay them overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Both men had worked as Measurement While Drilling Field Specialists (MWDs), collecting and analyzing critical drilling data used by oil and gas clients. Though they earned over $200,000 annually and performed predominantly non-manual labor, the district court ruled they were not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions. On appeal, however, the Fifth Circuit found that Gilchrist and Brockman met the requirements of the Highly Compensated Employee (HCE) exemption under the FLSA and reversed the district court’s decision.
  • The appellate court determined that the MWDs’ primary responsibilities—monitoring and analyzing real-time drilling data, running quality checks on surveys, and compiling reports—constituted administrative duties under the HCE exemption. It found the district court erred by minimizing the MWDs’ role in quality control, especially their ongoing evaluation of critical downhole data and pre-submission report verification. The court emphasized that these tasks were performed consistently throughout each workweek, which satisfies the regulatory requirement that exempt duties be performed “customarily and regularly.”
  • Additionally, the Fifth Circuit held that the MWDs also served as advisers to Schlumberger’s clients by providing data that guided essential drilling decisions. Drawing on its recent precedent in Venable v. Smith International, the court noted that even though MWDs had limited direct interaction with clients, their data and oversight directly affected the drilling process, similar to how offshore tool specialists advised rig crews. This advisory function, performed continually throughout their shifts, qualified as an exempt administrative duty directly related to the clients’ general business operations.
  • Because the HCE exemption only requires that one administrative or executive duty be customarily and regularly performed—combined with high compensation and non-manual work—the court concluded that Gilchrist and Brockman were exempt from the FLSA’s overtime protections. The Fifth Circuit did not reach arguments about executive duties or the exercise of independent judgment, finding them unnecessary given the administrative basis for exemption. The judgment was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims.

• Association of Club Executives of Texas, Inc. v. Paxton, 24-50434, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • Stewart, J. (Stewart, Dennis, Haynes), First Amendment
  • Affirming judgment holding as constitutional under the First Amendment Texas’s S.B. 315, which prohibits individuals under the age of 21 from working at sexually oriented businesses.
  • In this case, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of Texas Senate Bill 315, which prohibits individuals under 21 from working at sexually oriented businesses (SOBs). The law was enacted to reduce the risks of sex trafficking and exploitation. Several adult entertainment businesses challenged the statute under the First Amendment, arguing it infringed on their and their employees’ expressive rights. The district court upheld the law after a bench trial, finding that it met intermediate scrutiny by serving a substantial governmental interest and not restricting more speech than necessary. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
  • S.B. 315 amended multiple sections of Texas law to raise the minimum working age at SOBs from 18 to 21 and criminalized such employment under certain conditions. The plaintiffs—adult bookstores, cabarets, and their trade association—sued the Texas Attorney General and Workforce Commission leadership, arguing the statute was overbroad and chilled protected speech. The district court, after reviewing expert testimony, legislative history, and evidence, found that SOBs are linked to sex trafficking and that the regulation was a permissible time, place, and manner restriction, rather than a content-based ban.
  • On appeal, the Fifth Circuit agreed that intermediate scrutiny applied under the Renton framework, which governs regulations addressing the secondary effects of SOBs rather than their content. The court found that the state provided sufficient evidence to support a reasonable link between SOBs and sex trafficking, including expert reports, legislative findings, and firsthand accounts from former prosecutors. Even though Texas’s evidence was stronger for strip clubs than for other SOBs like bookstores or arcades, the court held that the state had met its relatively light burden under Renton.
  • The court also held that S.B. 315 allowed reasonable alternative channels for expressive conduct, noting that it didn’t ban adult businesses or the expressive conduct itself—just restricted the age of employees. The court rejected the argument that the age of workers significantly affected the expressive value of the performances. Finally, the court found that the law was not overbroad under the First Amendment because plaintiffs failed to show it would chill a substantial amount of protected speech. Because the statute reasonably serves a legitimate interest and avoids sweeping in protected speech unnecessarily, the court upheld its constitutionality.

Unpublished decisions

• U.S. v. Paschal, 24-11112, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Barksdale, Haynes, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming 18-month sentence on revocation of supervised release.

• U.S. v. Taylor, 24-20444, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal, compassionate release
  • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.

• U.S. v. Sealed Appellant, 24-30570, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Ramirez), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming 210-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine.

• U.S. v. Rangel-Cardenas, 24-40429, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Miranda, 24-50502, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas), criminal
  • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.

• U.S. v. Castonon-Renteria, 24-50771, c/w 24-50772, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas), criminal
  • Affirming conviction of illegal reentry and revocation of supervised release.

• Catorce v. Bondi, 25-60021, petition for review of BIA order
  • per curiam (Barksdale, Stewart, Ramirez), immigration
  • Dismissing in part and denying in part Mexican citizen’s petition for review of BIA order upholding the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial, for failure to establish good cause, of his motion for a continuance.

• Marquez-Guzman v. Bondi, 25-60089, petition for review of BIA order
  • per curiam (Davis, Wilson, Douglas), immigration
  • Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order upholding the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

• Mabrey v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 25-60116, appeal from Railroad Retirement Board
  • per curiam (Jones, Dennis, Southwick), labor law
  • Denying petition for review of Railroad Retirement Board’s holding that plaintiff was not entitled to spousal annuity as spouse of a retired railroad employee.