December 2, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Currier, 24-50974, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Clement, J. (Clement, Graves, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Vacating sentence in part and remanding for conformance of the written judgment of terms of supervised release with oral pronouncement.
    • The Fifth Circuit confronted a recurring post-Diggles question: what should be done when a written judgment includes unpronounced discretionary conditions of supervised release that exceed what the district court orally announced at sentencing. The court announced a bright-line rule: “Any discretionary condition in a written judgment that conflicts with the sentence as orally pronounced must be excised on remand.” This rule stems from the longstanding principle that “if the in-court pronouncement differs from the judgment that later issues, what the judge said at sentencing controls.” Because the district court here adopted by reference the Western District of Texas’s Standing Order—including a new, more burdensome full-time work condition that was not orally imposed—the written judgment conflicted with the pronouncement.
    • Applying this framework, the panel agreed that most of the Standing Order’s discretionary conditions merely duplicated Currier’s 2009 supervised-release conditions and thus created no conflict. But Standard Condition 7, requiring Currier to maintain “full time (at least thirty hours per week)” employment, imposed a greater burden than the previously imposed requirement that he simply “work regularly at a lawful occupation.” That created a direct conflict, and the court held the oral pronouncement controls. The panel also determined that the second sentence of Standard Condition 7—which required seeking full-time work—must likewise be struck because it flowed from the same conflicting full-time requirement. By contrast, the third sentence—requiring ten-day notice before workplace changes—was merely a “clarification” of existing obligations and could remain.
    • The court ultimately vacated in part and remanded with instructions to delete the conflicting portions of Condition 7 and any other discretionary conditions not orally pronounced. While the panel acknowledged that duplicative conditions could technically remain, it suggested that on remand the district court might be “most efficient” in simply eliminating the Standing Order reference altogether, which had been the “original sin that produced this head-to-head conflict.” The decision reinforces the rule that defendants have a due-process right to be present when discretionary conditions are imposed, and courts must ensure written judgments match what was said in open court.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Berger, 25-10485, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing, sufficiency of evidence
    • Affirming sentence on revocation of supervised release, and affirming revocation was supported by sufficient evidence.
  • Moreno v. Microsoft Corp., 25-20019, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), employment discrimination, Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act, summary judgment, discovery
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims, where plaintiff had delayed seeking discovery until the close of discovery under the court’s scheduling order.
  • U.S. v. Johnson, 24-30011, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, guilty plea
    • Affirming guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.
  • Gonzalez v. Martinez, 25-30099, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Clement, Graves, Ho) (no oral argument), habeas corpus, immigration
    • Affirming dismissal of § 2241 petition as an improper procedural vehicle for raising a citizenship claim.
  • U.S. v. Edwards, 24-30138, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Jackson, 25-40081, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 60-month sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • Kennedy v. Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District, 25-40138, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), False Claims Act, whistleblower, § 1983
    • Affirming 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) dismissal of former school district employee’s False Claims Act, whistleblower, and First and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
  • U.S. v. Sanusi, 25-40147, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, sentence reduction
    • Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction.
  • Smith v. State Farm Lloyds, 24-40282, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Richman, Willett) (oral argument withdrawn), insurance
    • Affirming judgment on verdict finding against plaintiffs on bad faith claim against insurer on handling of claim for tornado damage.
  • Njoroge v. Bondi, 25-60087, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Graves, Duncan) (no oral argument), immigration
    • Denying Kenyan citizen’s petition for review of BIA order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen.
  • Madrid-Pineda v. Bondi, 25-60223, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
  • Reyes-Soriano v. Bondi, 25-60246, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson) (no oral argument), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) finding him not credible, ordering him removed, and denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.