Take the Fifth

Designated for publication

• U.S. v. Lanaute, 25-30266, appeal from M.D. La.
  • Duncan, J. (Haynes, Duncan, Ramirez) (oral argument); criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming sentence on conviction of bank robbery, as enhanced for prior crime of violence for prior convictions of Louisiana armed robbery.
  • The Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s 151-month sentence for bank robbery, holding that his prior Louisiana convictions for armed robbery and attempted armed robbery qualify as “crimes of violence” under the career-offender provision of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The defendant robbed a Baton Rouge bank by handing a teller a threatening note demanding money and later pleaded guilty to federal bank robbery. At sentencing, the district court applied the career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, which raised his guideline range based on the two prior robbery convictions; he argued on appeal that Louisiana armed robbery is not categorically a crime of violence because it is a general-intent offense that could theoretically be committed recklessly. The Court rejected that argument, explaining that under the categorical approach a defendant must show a “realistic probability” that the state statute is applied to reckless or negligent conduct. The court concluded that Louisiana armed robbery—defined as taking property by force or intimidation while armed—necessarily involves the intentional use or threatened use of physical force, and the cases cited by the defendant did not demonstrate otherwise.

• Cambric v. City of Corpus Christi, 25-40126, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • Higginson, J. (Richman, Higginson, Oldham) (oral argument withdrawn); Oldham, J., concurring; § 1983, municipal liability
  • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claim alleging city’s selective enforcement of the building code, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
  • The plaintiff alleged that the City selectively enforced its building-code regulations against her historically significant property—known for its role in the local Black music community—by pursuing demolition while allegedly overlooking similar conditions elsewhere. The panel held that the complaint failed to plausibly plead municipal liability under Monell because it did not identify an official policy, widespread custom, or pattern of selective enforcement attributable to the City itself. Instead, the allegations described only a single enforcement episode concerning the plaintiff’s property, which is insufficient under Monell to establish that a municipality maintained an unconstitutional policy or practice. Because the complaint did not plausibly allege a constitutional violation traceable to a municipal policy or custom, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the action.
  • Judge Oldham concurred, writing separately to clarify how the Fifth Circuit’s Monell municipal-liability doctrine should operate. He explains that a plaintiff can establish municipal liability under § 1983 in three ways: by identifying a formally adopted policy, by showing a persistent and widespread practice amounting to a municipal custom, or—more narrowly—by proving that a single unconstitutional act by a final policymaker caused the violation. Judge Oldham emphasizes that the “single-incident” route is traditionally “very narrow,” because it is difficult to infer deliberate indifference from one event unless the risk of constitutional violations was highly predictable. He then discusses the Fifth Circuit’s recent Hershey v. City of Bossier City decisions, which allowed a Monell claim to proceed based on a single incident where officers allegedly received “literally zero training” on First Amendment duties. Judge Oldham warns that reading Hershey broadly could suggest that any isolated incident suffices to plead municipal liability, but he contends that the case should be limited to its failure-to-train context and should not extend to claims that policymakers selectively enforced a law. Because Cambric’s complaint alleges selective enforcement rather than a training deficiency—and relies essentially on a single alleged instance—Judge Oldham concludes that Hershey does not apply and that the plaintiff’s Monell claim properly fails

• Texas v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 23-60069, petition for review of EPA order
  • Richman, J. (Stewart, Richman, Scholer, by designation) (oral argument); Clean Air Act
  • Denying in part and granting in part petitions for review of EPA’s disapproval of Louisiana’s and Mississippi’s and Texas’s Clean Air Act state implementation plans, vacating the disapprovals of Mississippi’s and Texas’s SIPs, and remanding to agency.
  • The Fifth Circuit reviewed challenges by several states, utilities, and industry groups to the EPA’s disapproval of state implementation plans (SIPs) submitted by Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi under the Clean Air Act’s interstate-transport or “Good Neighbor” provision. The EPA had concluded that the states’ SIPs failed to adequately address emissions that could significantly contribute to ozone nonattainment in downwind states and therefore disapproved the plans. The Fifth Circuit held that EPA’s disapproval actions were unlawful in significant respects and vacated the rule, concluding that EPA’s approach to evaluating the SIP submissions was inconsistent with the statutory framework governing state implementation plans.
  • The court began by explaining the cooperative-federalism structure of the Clean Air Act. Congress directs EPA to set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for pollutants such as ozone, while the states retain primary responsibility for implementing those standards through SIPs tailored to local conditions. Once EPA revises or promulgates a NAAQS, each state must submit a plan demonstrating how it will achieve and maintain the standard. EPA must approve the submission if it meets statutory requirements, but if the agency determines that the plan is inadequate, it may disapprove the SIP and eventually impose a federal implementation plan.
  • A central requirement in this case was the Clean Air Act’s “Good Neighbor” provision, which requires state plans to prohibit emissions that will “contribute significantly” to nonattainment of air-quality standards in another state. This provision addresses the interstate transport of pollution, particularly ozone-forming emissions that can travel across state lines. The court reviewed Supreme Court precedent interpreting the provision, emphasizing that the statute limits EPA’s authority to requiring reductions only in the measurable “amounts” of pollution that significantly affect downwind states’ attainment of the NAAQS.
  • EPA had issued a final rule disapproving the SIP submissions of multiple states after modeling interstate ozone transport for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The agency concluded that the states’ plans did not adequately address cross-state pollution contributions and therefore rejected them. Petitioners argued that EPA’s analysis improperly relied on assumptions and modeling that did not correspond to the statutory requirements for evaluating a SIP submission and that the agency had effectively imposed requirements beyond those required by the Clean Air Act.
  • The Fifth Circuit agreed that EPA’s reasoning was flawed. The court concluded that EPA failed to properly evaluate whether the submitted SIPs themselves satisfied the statutory criteria and instead relied on a broader regulatory framework that effectively predetermined disapproval. The court emphasized that the Clean Air Act requires EPA to assess each state’s plan based on the statutory requirements governing SIPs, rather than rejecting the plan because it did not align with EPA’s preferred policy approach.
  • The opinion stressed that the Clean Air Act carefully delineates responsibilities between federal and state authorities. States have discretion to choose how to meet air-quality standards so long as their plans achieve the required outcomes. By rejecting the states’ submissions without adequately tying its reasoning to the statutory standards for SIP approval, the court held that EPA exceeded the bounds of the authority Congress delegated to it. The court also underscored that statutory terms such as “amounts” and “contribute significantly” require measurable, evidence-based determinations rather than generalized modeling assumptions.
  • As a result, the Fifth Circuit vacated EPA’s disapprovals of Mississippi and Texas SIPs, and remanded the matter to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the court’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act. The decision reinforces the cooperative-federalism structure of the statute and limits EPA’s ability to reject state implementation plans based on policy preferences rather than the specific statutory criteria governing SIP approval. The ruling also places constraints on the agency’s use of nationwide modeling frameworks to disapprove state plans addressing interstate ozone transport.

Unpublished decisions

• U.S. v. Sepeda, 25-10570, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming life sentence on conviction of enticement and attempted enticement of a minor.

• U.S. v. Fields, 25-10599, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, compassionate release
  • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.

• U.S. v. Anthony, 25-10814, 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. Botello, 25-10828, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.

• U.S. v. Hawkins, 25-11128, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Nta, 25-30152, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Elrod, Higginbotham, Graves) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Affirming denial of writ of coram nobis and expunction.

• U.S. v. Nieto-Ramirez, 25-30313, appeal from M.D. La.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
  • Dismissing as moot appeal of 12-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.

• U.S. v. He, 25-30327, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming 60-month sentence on conviction of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana.

• U.S. v. Juarez, 25-50304, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
  • Dismissing as moot appeal from sentence on revocation of supervised release.

• U.S. v. Kisindja, 25-50336, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, guilty plea
  • Affirming guilty plea conviction of conspiring to transport illegal aliens resulting in death.

• U.S. v. Jackson, 24-50930, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.