February 2, 2026, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Three Fifty Markets, Ltd. v. Argos M M/V, 24-30413, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Douglas, J. (Dennis, Oldham, Douglas) (oral argument), Oldham, J., dissenting; maritime law
    • Affirming issuance of maritime lien against vessel to secure payment for marine fuel oil bunkers.
    • The dispute centers on an unpaid delivery of marine fuel (“bunkers”) to the Liberian-flagged cargo vessel ARGOS M. Three Fifty Markets, a UK-based commodity trading company, supplied about 800 metric tons of fuel after being contacted through a broker. The charterer of the vessel, Shimsupa GmbH, and a related guarantor entity, AUM Scrap and Metals Waste Trading LLC, never paid the invoice. Three Fifty then sought a maritime lien against the vessel in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The district court held a bench trial, applied American maritime law, found that AUM had apparent authority to bind the charterer, and granted the lien.
    • On appeal, Judge Douglas confirmed that American maritime law governs the dispute. The court reasoned that the contract’s choice-of-law provision — incorporated by reference — validly selected U.S. law regarding maritime liens, and that there was no conflict with foreign law on that point. Thus, the Fifth Circuit proceeded under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act (CIMLA), which governs when and how necessaries suppliers can obtain maritime liens. The panel rejected appellant Argos’s contention that a foreign law choice-of-law analysis was necessary before applying CIMLA.
    • Applying CIMLA, Judge Douglas explained the four elements required for a maritime lien: (1) provision of necessaries; (2) delivery to the vessel; (3) that the order was placed “on behalf of” a person authorized to do so; and (4) reasonable charges. The opinion found that Three Fifty indisputably provided and delivered the bunkers. On the authority element, the court held that the evidence supported a finding that AUM had apparent authority to act for Shimsupa, and that the charterer’s actions and industry practice reasonably led Three Fifty and the broker to believe so. As to price reasonableness, trial testimony showed that Three Fifty’s markup — about ten percent after broker fees — was consistent with industry practices and not clearly unreasonable.
    • Finally, Judge Douglas addressed Argos’s arguments that the district court erred in its factual findings and failed to consider general contractor/subcontractor analogies. The majority found no reversible error: the factual findings were plausible and supported, and the legal framework applied was appropriate.
    • In dissent, Judge Oldham contended that the court should have first addressed critical choice-of-law issues arising from the charterparty between the shipowner (Argos Bulkers) and its charterer (Shimsupa). Under that charterparty, Shimsupa was expressly prohibited from entering any contract that could give rise to a maritime lien against the vessel and was required to notify any bunker supplier that the fuel was for Shimsupa’s account only and that the vessel and owner were not parties. Because the charterparty (the “A-B contract”) contained these no-lien provisions and likely its own choice-of-law terms, Judge Oldham explained that the court should have determined which sovereign’s law governed that contract before applying the choice-of-law clause in the later bunker supply contract (the “B-C contract”) that purported to permit a lien. He emphasized that the choice-of-law clause in the B-C contract between Shimsupa and Three Fifty could not automatically be read to govern the antecedent A-B contract, especially where different parties and terms are involved. Without resolving what law governs the charterparty, Judge Oldham asserted, the validity and enforceability of the bunker contract’s lien provisions could not be properly assessed.
    • Judge Oldham further distinguished this case from prior maritime lien cases, noting that even where charterers and their agents are ordinarily presumed to have authority to bind a vessel, explicit contractual restrictions on lien creation should matter. He stressed that under the charterparty at issue, Argos Bulkers took steps “to protect itself contractually” from liens, and that the majority’s reliance on the bunker supply contract’s U.S. law choice-of-law provision bypassed fundamental contract and conflicts-of-law principles. Thus, Judge Oldham would have vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for a proper choice-of-law inquiry into the charterparty’s terms before deciding whether any maritime lien could attach.
  • Harvard Maintenance, Inc. v. NLRB, 24-60523, petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of NLRB decision
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Dennis, Richman) (oral argument), Dennis, J., dissenting in part; labor law
    • Granting petition to review in part and denying in part, and granting Board’s application for enforcement in part and denying in part, on claims that employer had engaged in coercive statements to an employee regarding her lodging of a series of complaints for violation of the collective bargaining agreement, and for wrongful termination.
    • The panel reviewed Harvard Maintenance’s challenge to the National Labor Relations Board’s decision holding that the employer violated Sections 7 and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by coercively threatening and unlawfully discharging employee Carina Cruz for engaging in protected concerted activity and by awarding her consequential damages. The opinion begins by outlining the factual record: Cruz repeatedly complained about workplace conditions and was terminated shortly after raising these concerns. The Board’s findings were grounded in an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) credibility determinations and evidentiary record, which the court reviewed under the substantial evidence standard for factual findings and de novo review for legal conclusions.
    • On the merits, the Fifth Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that Harvard Maintenance made coercive statements in violation of Section 8(a)(1). The panel agreed that supervisor remarks—warning Cruz she might face suspension or warnings if she pursued union or NLRB complaints—were coercive when viewed from the perspective of a reasonable employee exercising Section 7 rights. The court deferred to the ALJ’s credibility determinations, noting Cruz’s testimony was reasonably credited and inconsistent contrary testimony by the company did not undermine the Board’s conclusions. Similarly, the court affirmed the finding that a manager’s direction to Cruz to “stop interfering” with a coworker’s workplace concerns could reasonably be perceived as a threat of reprisal, as it tended to chill protected activity.
    • The majority also rejected Harvard Maintenance’s challenge to the Board’s finding that Cruz’s protected activities were a motivating factor in her suspension and discharge. Applying the Wright Line framework, the court held that the Board reasonably found (1) Cruz engaged in protected concerted conduct; (2) the employer knew of her activity; (3) adverse action occurred; and (4) that activity was a motivating factor in the termination. The panel emphasized timing and disparate disciplinary patterns—employees with worse conduct were not discharged—supporting the Board’s inference of animus. The employer’s alternative explanations for the termination were deemed insufficient to overcome the substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusions, and the company failed to prove an affirmative defense showing it would have fired Cruz regardless of her protected conduct.
    • After resolving the liability issues in favor of the Board, the opinion turned to the remedy portion of the Board’s order—specifically, the award of direct and foreseeable pecuniary harms as consequential damages. Harvard Maintenance contended that this remedy exceeded the Board’s statutory authority. The court described the Board’s adoption of the Thryv, Inc. standard for such damages (a recent Board formulation) and set the stage for analyzing whether the NLRA authorizes this kind of award without violating statutory limits or constitutional principles. The opinion ultimately found the statutory authority and remedial limits to be problematic—leading to vacatur of that part of the order.
    • Here’s a one-paragraph summary of the partial dissenting opinion by Judge James L. Dennis at pages 24–25 of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Harvard Maintenance, Inc. v. NLRB (No. 24-60523-CV0):
    • Judge Dennis dissented in part, contending that the majority erred in addressing Harvard Maintenance’s challenge to the National Labor Relations Board’s Thryv remedy because the employer failed to raise that challenge before the Board and, under § 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider it; he criticized the majority’s reliance on the “futility exception” to avoid the exhaustion requirement as unsupported by the record and insufficiently reasoned, observing that precedent applies that exception sparingly, and he further contended that principles of judicial restraint counsel against the majority’s extended statutory analysis of the Thryv remedy given that this court’s earlier decision in Hiran Management, Inc. v. NLRB governs the issue in this circuit, so the majority’s detailed treatment added nothing necessary to the judgment.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Moreno, 25-10176, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, search and seizure
    • Affirming conviction of possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, upholding denial of motion to suppress.
  • U.S. v. Matute-Rodriguez, 25-10281, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 46-month sentence for illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Burdette, 25-10487, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming three consecutive 100-month sentences on conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance.
  • U.S. v. Gilmore, 25-10607, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Gore v. Trans Union LLC, 25-10654, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Richman, Haynes) (no oral argument), Fair Credit and Reporting Act, attorneys’ fees
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from award of attorneys’ fees and costs to defendant on credit reporting claim.
  • U.S. v. Reeves, 25-10709, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Culp, 25-10714, 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. Perez-Rodriguez, 25-10915, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
  • Farooq v. Bolt, 25-10940, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Ho) (no oral argument), employment discrimination
    • Affirming dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 of action alleging litigation misconduct in prior, underlying employment-discrimination claim.
  • U.S. v. Pickens, 25-20047, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 722-month sentence and conviction of four counts of completed Hobbs Act robbery, four counts of brandishing a firearm in relation to those counts, and one count of attempted Hobbs Act Robbery.
  • Marks v. Clinichek Corp., 25-20290, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), Administrative Procedures Act
    • Affirming dismissal of claim that company that reported his positive marijuana test to the clearinghouse for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration exceeded its regulatory authority.
  • U.S. v. Tyler, 25-30269, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 162-month sentence on conviction of conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Miranda-Martinez, 25-30292, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 66-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. De la Paz-Aguirre, 25-40074, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Dentons US L.L.P. v. Stairway Legacy Assets, L.P., 25-40235, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Haynes) (oral argument), commercial litigation, contract dispute, res judicata, collateral estoppel
    • Affirming summary judgment in favor of defendants in commercial dispute arising from patent enforcement.
  • Peoples v. Abbott, 25-40335, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 claims.
  • U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 25-40341, 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. Avila-Lechuga, 25-50075, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 24-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Gonzalez, 24-50076, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal, search and seizure
    • Affirming conviction on drug trafficking charges, upholding denial of motion to suppress.
  • U.S. v. Jones, 24-50360, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Castillo-Guaman, 25-50376, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Camacho-Flores, 25-50460, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Montes-Galeas, 25-50501, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Nunez-Guerra, 25-50544, 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. Smith, 22-51047, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Dismissing appeal from conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon, on basis of appeal-waiver in plea agreement.
  • Hussen v. Bondi, 25-60283, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Ho) (no oral argument), immigration
    • Denying Bangladeshi citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision finding that he abandoned his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture and ordering removal.
  • Delgado v. Bondi, 25-60313, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Ho) (no oral argument), immigration
    • Denying Mexican citizen’s petition for review of BIA order upholding an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of cancellation of removal.
  • Gutierrez v. Bondi, 25-60321, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Ho) (no oral argument), immigration
    • Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT.
  • Canales-Alvarez v. Bondi, 25-60385, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), immigration
    • Denying Salvadoran citizens’ petition for review of BIA order upholding the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.