December 8, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Kirchner, 24-10644, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Willett, J. (Higginson, Willett, Engelhardt) (oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 240-month sentence on convictions of wire fraud and money laundering.
    • The defendant — Christopher Kirchner — was the co-founder and CEO of a logistics software startup. He diverted millions in investor funds to finance a lavish personal lifestyle rather than developing the business. After the misuse depleted runway, he raised additional rounds of funding by making materially false statements and using fabricated documents to mislead investors about the company’s financial condition and how new funds would be deployed. A jury found him guilty on multiple counts of wire fraud and money laundering, and the district court sentenced him to 240 months in prison.
    • As to due process, Kirchner contended that the trial judge’s voir dire-style questions and occasional commentary impermissibly biased the jury against him. The Fifth Circuit evaluated these claims under the plain-error standard (because he did not object at trial), and concluded that while a judge has discretion to question witnesses under federal rules, the record here did not show a structural error or an appearance of unfairness sufficient to warrant reversal.
    • Critically, the court noted that the challenged judicial remarks and questions were limited in scope, constituted only a small portion of the overall trial, and were interspersed over a four-day trial that included extensive documentary evidence, investor testimony, and forensic-accountant analysis. Moreover, the district court gave clear curative instructions to the jury, explicitly advising them that only they — the jurors — were to decide facts, and that nothing the judge said should be construed as indicating any opinion about the verdict. Given the “overwhelming” evidence of misrepresentations, misuse of funds, and fraudulent transfers — including Kirchner’s own admissions that he doctored records and diverted tens of millions — any arguably improper judicial questions would not have altered the outcome.
    • Finally, because the court found no reversible error — neither in the jury-trial process nor in the sufficiency of the evidence or sentencing procedure — the Fifth Circuit affirmed both the conviction and the sentence in full.
  • Alvarado v. Briese Schiffahrts GmbH & Co. KG MS Sapphire, 24-20476, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Wilson, J. (Southwick, Higginson, Wilson) (oral argument), maritime law
    • Affirming summary judgment for defendants on longshoreman’s injury claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.
    • The plaintiff, Alberto Alvarado, was a temporary longshoreman assigned by his staffing agency to work at a terminal operated by Jacintoport International, L.L.C. (JPI). While descending a ladder into the cargo hold of the ship MSC Sapphire, he slipped — claiming poor lighting, fog, and condensation made the ladder chute unreasonably dangerous — and suffered serious leg injuries. He sued the vessel owner/operator (and JPI) under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), alleging negligence and gross negligence. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
    • The Court explained that under the LHWCA, the vessel’s duties to longshoremen — the “turnover duty” (to hand over a vessel in reasonably safe condition) and the “active-control duty” (to avoid hazards under the vessel’s control) — were not breached because the hazards were either open and obvious or of the kind a competent stevedore should anticipate (wet and dim ladder, fog, condensation). The lighting and wetness did not amount to “latent hazards” that required a special warning. And even apart from that, the Court held that Alvarado was a “borrowed employee” of JPI under LHWCA. Because JPI had secured workers’ compensation coverage for him, the LHWCA’s exclusive-remedy provision barred his negligence suit.
  • Town of Vinton v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., 24-30035, c/w Police Jury of Cameron Parish v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., 24-30748, c/w Cameron Parish Recreation #6 v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., 24-30749, c/w Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London v. Cameron Parish Recreation #6, 24-30750, c/w Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London v. Police Jury of Cameron Parish, 24-30751, c/w School Board of Cameron Parish v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., 24-30756, c/w Certain Underwriters of Lloyds London v. School Board of Cameron Parish, 24-30757, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Ho, J. (Haynes, Ho, Oldham) (oral argument), insurance, arbitration
    • The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of American insurers’ motion to compel arbitration in a case brought by Town of Vinton (and related municipal entities) because under Louisiana law — specifically La. R.S. § 22:868 — arbitration clauses in insurance contracts covering property in the state are prohibited. The court rejected the insurers’ argument that the arbitration agreement should be enforced under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards/Federal Arbitration Act, because no foreign party remained after dismissal of the foreign insurers. The court also rejected the alternative theories — equitable estoppel and delegation clause — finding that state law invalidates the arbitration agreement ab initio, so there is no “valid agreement” for a court (or arbitrator) to enforce. They therefore affirmed the denial of arbitration and let the case proceed in court.

Unpublished decisions

  • Little v. Cozby, 25-10704, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Richman, Ramirez) (no oral argument), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 suit.
  • U.S. v. Garza-Avalos, 24-20486, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Wells v. Gautreaux, 25-30202, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), § 1983
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims.
  • Currault v. American River Transportation Co., 24-30471, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Dennis, Haynes) (oral argument), maritime law
    • Affirming the grant of a salvage award to plaintiffs for the rescue of defendant’s barges.
  • Landry’s, L.L.C. v. Chubb Bermuda Insurance, Ltd., 25-30566, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Haynes) (oral argument), insurance, personal jurisdiction
    • In insurance dispute, vacating preliminary injunction enjoining defendant insurer from pursuing or enforcing proceedings in English and Welsh courts, on basis that district court had no personal jurisdiction over defendant insurer.
  • U.S. v. Green, 24-30613, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Higginson, Wilson) (oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 180-month sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of a machinegun.
  • U.S. v. Doucet, 24-30656, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Graves, Duncan) (oral argument withdrawn), Duncan, J., dissenting; criminal, Second Amendment
    • Reversing conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the criminal statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied, and remanding for further proceedings.
    • The Fifth Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Briani Doucet, whose sole felony conviction was for attempted marijuana cultivation under Louisiana law. Although Doucet had twice been found with a handgun during 2020 traffic stops, the panel concluded that the Government failed to satisfy its burden under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to demonstrate a historical tradition of permanently disarming individuals with a predicate offense like hers. The court rejected the dissent’s doubts about the nature of the 2016 conviction, emphasizing that both parties—and the district court—agreed it was attempted cultivation, and that the principle of party presentation prevented the court from recharacterizing the offense. Because the plain text of the Second Amendment covers Doucet’s conduct, the burden shifted to the Government to identify a relevant historical analogue. But the court held that Founding-era offenses involving theft or counterfeiting, as well as dangerous-person disarmament traditions, did not sufficiently resemble attempted cultivation of marijuana.
    • The panel further reasoned that Doucet’s offense is nonviolent, does not inherently involve trafficking or violence, and is often committed for personal use rather than commercial distribution, undermining any analogy to dangerous criminal classes historically disarmed. Precedents such as Kimble, Connelly, and Diaz established that only inherently dangerous or violence-associated felonies—such as drug trafficking—support categorical disarmament. By contrast, marijuana cultivation lacked both historical regulation and any demonstrated connection to violence. The Government also failed to identify any Founding-era laws disarming those who produced intoxicants, noting that early American statutes punished illegal alcohol production with fines rather than disarmament. Because neither of the Government’s proposed analogue theories met the standards required by Bruen, the Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of Doucet’s motion to dismiss the indictment and remanded for further proceedings.
    • Judge Duncan dissented, contending that the majority’s conclusion rests on a fundamentally flawed premise. First, the dissent explains that the Louisiana statute Doucet violated, La. Rev. Stat. § 40:966, criminalizes a wide array of serious drug-trafficking conduct involving the production, manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of Schedule I controlled substances, not simple or attempted cultivation, and thus aligns with activities the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly deemed “inherently dangerous” for Second Amendment purposes. Second, the dissent contends that the limited record information—including the PSR’s description that Doucet intentionally produced, manufactured, distributed, or dispensed marijuana—offers no support for the majority’s speculative assumptions that her offense was nonviolent, personal-use-oriented, or akin to growing hemp. Because the record reflects a conviction for conduct consistent with drug trafficking, not benign marijuana activity, the dissent would uphold the constitutionality of applying § 922(g)(1) to Doucet and therefore respectfully dissents.
  • Greenough v. Gray, 24-40669, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction appeal from order denying appointment of counsel in plaintiff Texas inmate’s § 1983 claim.
  • Lowe v. Internal Revenue Service, 25-50301, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Haynes) (oral argument), tax law
    • Affirming district court’s holding that bankruptcy estate owed taxes to IRS.