December 5, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Hudson, 24-11070, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Ho, Douglas) (oral argument withdrawn), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
    • The Court affirmed the sentence of Eddie Hudson. The court found no error in the district court’s decision to treat Hudson’s 2008 Arkansas robbery conviction as a prior “crime of violence” under the sentencing guidelines when computing his base offense level. It concluded that the statutory elements of Arkansas robbery — requiring force used either before or immediately after the theft — align with the generic definition of “robbery” adopted by the guidelines, so there is no categorical mismatch. As a result, the district court’s base-offense-level calculation (19) and the resulting 41-month sentence were proper.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Hernandez, 25-10309, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Restrepo, 25-10350, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Jenkins, 25-10518, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Sevier, 25-10655, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal, supervised release
    • Affirming revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Holloway, 25-10663, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Daniels, 25-10802, 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. Magana-Aguirre, 25-20256, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Monrroy-Garcia, 25-20277, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Valencia-Dominguez, 24-20454, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Oldham, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 54-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Martin, 24-30649, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 465-month sentence on conviction of five counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, two counts of possession of a firearm after having previously been convicted of a felony, and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.
  • U.S. v. Davis, 24-40208, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Ramirez-Lozano, 25-40264, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of conspiracy to transport an alien within the United States.
  • U.S. v. Benitez-Barrera, 25-50208, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Mitchell v. H-E-B, L.P., 25-50227, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Engelhardt, Summerhays, by designation) (oral argument withdrawn), ERISA, timeliness
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s claim against employer for denial of ERISA benefits as untimely.
  • U.S. v. Vargas-Rodriguez, 25-50280, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • Alcantara v. Jasso, 25-50405, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), civil
    • Affirming dismissal of claims with prejudice as sanction for failure to comply with court orders.
  • Young v. NHE, Inc., 25-60113, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Jones, Higginson) (no oral argument), employment discrimination
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of employment discrimination claim.
  • Trotter v. Loden, 24-60456, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (King, Higginson, Wilson) (oral argument), habeas corpus
    • Affirming denial of post-conviction relief for Mississippi inmate who had been sentenced to life without parole for a crime he committed when he was 17 years old.
    • The case involves Leon Lamar Trotter, who was convicted of murder in Mississippi in 2004 for a crime committed at age 17, and automatically sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) under state law. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama (2012) — which held that mandatory LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional — Trotter pursued post-conviction relief. In 2018, a Mississippi circuit court held a resentencing hearing under the mitigating-factors framework required by Miller and ultimately denied Trotter a sentence with the possibility of parole; state appellate courts affirmed. Trotter then filed a federal habeas petition challenging his sentence under Miller and related Supreme Court jurisprudence.
    • On appeal, Trotter argued (1) that his mandatory juvenile LWOP sentence should have been vacated and he should have received a fresh discretionary sentencing proceeding; (2) that the state courts violated his rights by applying procedural standards developed after his 2018 hearing; and (3) that he was denied a truly discretionary hearing as required under Miller. The Fifth Circuit rejected all three arguments. First, it explained that neither Miller nor precedent requires automatic vacatur and resentencing — what they require is a discretionary hearing in which “youth and its attendant characteristics” are considered. The court concluded that the 2018 hearing did precisely that, giving Trotter an opportunity to present mitigating evidence, so his LWOP sentence remains constitutionally permissible.
    • Second, regarding the procedural-timing argument, the Fifth Circuit held that the relevant standard applied by the state courts was grounded not in a newly issued state-law decision, but in existing federal precedent at the time of Trotter’s hearing. In other words, although later state-court decisions may have elaborated on the procedure, the courts at the time of Trotter’s hearing relied on a binding standard already in place under Supreme Court law. Finally, under the highly deferential standard of federal habeas review, the court found no basis to disturb the state-court determinations — the denial of habeas relief was affirmed.
  • U.S. v. Cox, 24-60505, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.