October 23-24, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Published decisions

  • U.S. v. Haim, 25-20336, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Jones, Higginson) (no oral argument), Higginson, J., dissenting; criminal, discovery, sealed records
    • Granting unopposed motion for summary reversal of unexplained denial of joint unopposed motion for entry of modified protective order for production of criminal discovery records.
    • Finding: “The dissent raises the concern that a reversal of the District Court’s order may result in discovery materials protected under Rule 6(e) being given to Dr. Haim’s civil counsel. The parties were asked to file a letter detailing what, if any, grand jury material is implicated. The parties responded that none of the discovery materials at issue ‘reveal any grand jury deliberations or votes.’ Our review of the sealed documents supports the parties’ joint statement. The dissent’s concern about the grand jury material being transmitted to Dr. Haim’s civil counsel is merely speculative.” The majority also found that the district court’s decision on sealed materials was not entitled to deference where there was no explanation of reasoning provided.
    • Judge Higginson dissented, contending that a district court’s protective order governing sensitive criminal discovery materials depends on the trial judge’s factual familiarity and discretion, especially when grand jury secrecy under Rule 6(e) is implicated. Judge Higginson emphasizes that neither party properly addressed the strict requirements for disclosing grand jury materials or demonstrated the “particularized need” necessary to overcome the presumption of secrecy. He faults the per curiam majority for granting relief based on a generalized claim that the discovery might aid future civil litigation—an argument rejected by Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent—and for acting without adequate briefing or fact-finding by the district court. Warning that the appellate court’s summary reversal risks violating Rule 6(e) and undermining grand jury confidentiality, Judge Higginson urges either full merits briefing or remand for the district court to determine whether any Rule 6(e) exception applies, concluding that the majority’s haste disregards both procedural restraint and the law’s protections for grand jury secrecy.
  • U.S. v. Hernandez-Adame, 24-50533, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Elrod, J. (Elrod, King, Graves) (oral argument), criminal, jury instruction
    • Affirming conviction for illegal reentry, finding no reversible error in the district court’s jury instruction on the definition of “official restraint.”
    • Lazaro Hernandez-Adame, a Mexican national with a history of prior removals, was convicted of illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). After being deported several times, he deliberately crossed into the United States in August 2023, claiming he did so to get arrested and thereby obtain appointed counsel to challenge his immigration status. He crossed the international bridge by bus from Juárez to El Paso, jumped a southbound turnstile, and immediately surrendered to Customs and Border Protection officers, telling them he wanted to be arrested. Indicted for illegal re-entry, he went to trial, conceding the government’s factual account but arguing that he never truly “entered” the United States because he was never free from “official restraint.” The district court denied his motion for acquittal and refused to instruct the jury on the meaning of “official restraint,” concluding that it was not an element of the offense and that the circuit had not adopted the doctrine.
    • On appeal, Hernandez argued that the district court’s refusal to give his proposed instruction—that “actual reentry requires physical presence in the United States and freedom from official restraint”—deprived him of his only viable defense. The Fifth Circuit explained that denials of requested jury instructions are reviewed for abuse of discretion and are reversible only if the requested instruction was substantially correct, not covered elsewhere, and concerned a critical issue impairing the defense. The panel noted that the trial court’s charge followed the Fifth Circuit’s pattern jury instructions for § 1326(a), which accurately reflect the four elements of the offense: alienage, prior deportation, reentry or presence, and lack of consent to reapply for admission.
    • The court acknowledged that prior Fifth Circuit precedent—specifically United States v. Morales-Palacios—recognized that “entry” under § 1326 requires freedom from official restraint. However, it clarified that this concept defines what constitutes entry; it is not an additional element of the offense. Because “freedom from official restraint” is context-specific and not inherently beyond a jury’s understanding, district courts retain discretion to determine whether the doctrine’s inclusion is warranted. The panel contrasted its approach with the Ninth Circuit, where “official restraint” is more explicitly embedded in jury instructions, but ultimately held that the pattern instruction here substantially covered the necessary legal ground.
    • Finally, the Fifth Circuit found no reversible error because Hernandez’s counsel was still able to present his theory to the jury—that he crossed the bridge only to surrender and seek custody, not to unlawfully enter the country. Even without using the term “official restraint,” counsel repeatedly argued that Hernandez’s intent and immediate surrender distinguished his conduct from illegal entry. Since the defense was fully aired and the jury could evaluate it, the absence of the requested instruction did not “seriously impair” Hernandez’s ability to present his case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction but remanded for correction of a clerical error in the judgment, which mischaracterized the offense as attempted rather than completed illegal re-entry.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Reed, 25-10319, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 150-month sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Britt, 25-10362, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Granados, 25-10392, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Wilson, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, sentence reduction
    • Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction.
  • Woods v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 25-10505, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Richman, Willett) (no oral argument), Title VII, employment discrimination, timliness
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims as time-barred.
  • U.S. v. Davis, 24-11107, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP v. Bitgood, 24-20458, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Graves, Duncan) (oral argument withdrawn), trademark infringement, unfair trade practices, fraud, attorneys’ fees
    • Affirming judgment in favor of plaintiff law firm on unfair competition, conspiracy to infringe trademarks, and permanent injunctive relief against defendant that registered an entity in the law firm’s name when its business registration lapsed and attempted to use that new registration as a litigation tactic against the law firm; vacating award of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees; and remanding for further proceedings.
  • U.S. v. Hankton, 25-30023, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Taylor v. South LA Contractors L.L.C., 25-30150, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), labor law
    • Affirming judgment after bench trial in favor of plaintiff employee on claims under Louisiana Wage Payment Act for failure to timely pay employee and failure to pay at all employee’s accrued vacation time.
  • U.S. v. Pineda, 24-40578, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, sufficiency of evidence
    • Affirming conviction of conspiracy to distribute (and to possess with intent to distribute) fentanyl, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
  • U.S. v. Anguiano-Ruiz, 25-50044, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Bermea, 25-50046, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Dominguez-Murillo, 25-50114, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Lopez-Baquero, 25-50241, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • Strategy and Execution, Inc. v. Black Rifle Coffee Co., 25-50284, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Wilson, Douglas) (no oral argument), breach of contract
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for breach of a Consulting Agreement seeking payment of royalties for products manufactured after termination of agreement.
  • U.S. v. Campos, 24-50615, c/w 24-50624, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming imposition of two consecutive 36-month sentences on revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Shearer, 24-50776, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal, sufficiency of evidence, witness testimony, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor and attempted transfer of obscene material to a minor; but vacating sentence as in excess of statutory maximum and remanding for resentencing.
  • Alvarenga-Iraheta v. Bondi, 25-60137, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Elrod, Higginson, Ramirez) (no oral argument), immigration
    • Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.