January 28, 2026, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Mendez, 24-10574, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Ho, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, jury instructions, sentencing, sufficiency of evidence
    • Affirming 84-month sentence and conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and six counts of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance.
  • U.S. v. Harnandez, 24-10734, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Engelhardt, Oldham) (no oral argument), Oldham, J., dissenting; criminal, compassionate release
    • Vacating denial of motion for compassionate release, and remanding for further proceedings, holding that the district court failed to address the arguments raised in Ronald Hernandez’s most recent motion and relied on erroneous factual statements about his motion and the record. The panel explained that Hernandez had raised six “extraordinary and compelling” reasons to reduce his sentence—such as intervening DOJ policy changes, case law developments, alleged sentencing errors, COVID-19 conditions, sentencing disparities, and rehabilitation—but the district court mischaracterized his arguments, ignored new claims, and improperly based its decision on prior rulings that did not consider the § 3582(c)(1)(A) standard. The court clarified the applicable legal framework for compassionate release, including the need to consider the defendant’s arguments and statutory factors, and found the district court’s factual errors (e.g., misstatements about sentencing guidelines and conspiracy involvement) required remand for proper consideration.
    • Judge Oldham dissented, contending that the district court accurately recognized that Hernandez recycled arguments about his sentence’s length and conditions of confinement, and even if the majority’s perceived errors were real, they were harmless under this Court’s precedent (which allows affirming a denial of § 3582(c)(1)(A) relief if the record’s § 3553(a) sentencing factors independently support denial). Judge Oldham emphasized that the district court properly weighed the seriousness of Hernandez’s extensive drug and firearm offenses and the lack of extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, and that remanding for another round of litigation would merely prolong post-conviction proceedings for a repeat applicant.
  • Lewis v. Grant, 24-11011, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Ho, Douglas) (oral argument), qualified immunity
    • Affirming qualified immunity summary judgment dismissal of claims against officer arising from death of pretrial detainee.
  • Pearson v. Guerrero, 24-20112, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Clement, Haynes) (oral argument), habeas corpus
    • Affirming denial of habeas petition on IAC claim where petitioner had sought relief on basis that trial counsel did not challenge juror in sexual assault trial where juror had notified judge that she had been molested as a child but thought she could be fair.
  • Brown v. Chism, 25-20303, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Ho, Douglas) (no oral argument), § 1983
    • Dismissing as frivolous pretrial detainee’s appeal from denial of motion to reopen time to appeal dismissal of civil suit for want of prosecution.
  • U.S. v. Florant, 25-30022, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Oldham, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 180-month sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Willis, 25-30353, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.