August 7, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 22-60266, c/w Wynnewood Refining Co., L.L.C. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 22-60425, c/w Ergon Refining, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 22-60433, c/w Placid Refining Co., L.L.C. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 22-60434, on petitions for review of EPA actions
    • per curiam (Elrod, Higginbotham, Smith), Clean Air Act, administrative law, Administrative Procedure Act, venue
    • On remand from U.S. Supreme Court, original panel opinion from November 22, 2023 (Elrod, Smith, Higginbotham; Higginbotham, J., dissenting) (vacating EPA decision to deny refineries’ requested exemptions from the Renewable Fuel Standard program of the Clean Air Act), transferring appeals to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on basis that “actions under review were based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect and that venue is therefore proper only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.”
  • Retro Metro, L.L.C. v. City of Jackson, 24-60647, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • Engelhardt, J. (Elrod, Duncan, Engelhardt), breach of contract
    • Affirming district court’s judgment in favor of City on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim arising from lease agreement between City and plaintiff that was never proclaimed in the minutes of the City Council.
    • The case revolves around the City of Jackson’s lease agreement with Retro Metro, LLC, for a commercial property in Jackson, Mississippi. The central issue is whether the lease is valid under Mississippi’s “minutes rule,” which mandates that public boards can only take official actions that are documented in meeting minutes. While the Jackson City Council initially authorized the lease in January and February 2011, the council’s meeting minutes failed to record the actual lease agreement. As a result, the district court ruled that the lease was invalid and could not be enforced, affirming that it violated the minutes rule.
    • Despite Retro Metro’s argument that judicial estoppel should prevent the City from denying the lease’s validity due to inconsistent statements in previous litigation, the court ruled that judicial estoppel could not override the minutes rule. The Mississippi Supreme Court has established that a public entity cannot be bound by any agreement unless it is properly recorded in the minutes, regardless of prior court stipulations or admissions. Therefore, the court concluded that the City’s earlier admissions in state court litigation did not validate the lease under the minutes rule.
    • Finally, Retro Metro’s claim that the City waived its defense by failing to raise it in its answer was rejected. The court ruled that the minutes rule is not an affirmative defense that the City needed to plead but is instead a fundamental requirement for proving the existence of a valid contract. As the burden was on Retro Metro to prove the contract was duly recorded, the court upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss the case, affirming that the lease was unenforceable.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Rodriguez-Becerra, 25-10369, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho), criminal
    • Affirming conviction for illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Sterling, 24-11028, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Graves, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Richburg, 24-30338, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jones, Graves, Rodriguez, by designation), habeas corpus
    • Affirming denial of sec. 2255 petition.
  • Brook v. Holzerland, 24-40640, c/w 25-40014, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Ho), Freedom of Information Act
    • Affirming dismissal of FOIA claims.
  • Carico v. Bristow, 24-40239, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Ramirez), qualified immunity
    • Affirming summary judgment for police officer defendant on qualified immunity grounds on plaintiff’s claim arising from officer shooting him in the back.
  • Save the Cutoff v. Iron River Ranch II, L.L.C., 24-40717, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Duncan, Engelhardt), Clean Water Act
    • Affirming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction the plaintiff’s Clean Water Act claim arising from defendant’s placement of fill into a creek, on basis that the claim was for a “wholly past violation.”
  • U.S. v. Escalera-Diaz, 25-50084, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Higginson, Ramirez), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Martinez-Lara, 25-50161, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Spillman Ranch Homes, L.P. v. Adorare, 25-50199, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Engelhardt, Wilson), civil
    • Affirming judgment in favor of plaintiff, with no description of case or of issues on appeal.
  • Ferrara v. Swonke, 25-50272, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Wilson, Douglas), sec. 1983
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s sec. 1983 claims that he is being surveilled by various public employees.
  • Kode v. Pargin, 24-50759, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Smith, Douglas), civil rights
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under various statutes alleging that defendants were conspiring to drive him from the neighborhood for racially motivated reasons.
  • Paredes-Erazo v. Bondi, 25-60057, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Stewart, Ramirez), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order upholding the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
  • U.S. v. Robinson, 24-60465, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Clement, Wilson), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • Williams v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 24-60525, appeal from U.S. Tax Court
    • per curiam (Jones, Graves, Rodriguez, by designation), tax law
    • Affirming summary judgment of Tax Court in favor of IRS Commissioner, sustaining the seizure of plaintiff’s state tax refund in partial satisfaction of a previous frivolous tax submission penalty and imposition of additional penalty.