April 27, 2026, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Unpublished decisions

  • United States v. Willie Ray Valentine, 25-11186, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • United States v. Jairo Omar Martinez, 25-20332, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Graves, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • United States v. Scott Wayne O’Toole, 25-11004, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Richman, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Breaux v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., 25-30255, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Ho, Ramirez) (no oral argument), toxic tort, expert witness, summary judgment
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of Deepwater Horizon claim.
    • At issue on appeal was (1) whether the district court erred in denying a stay to allow additional expert reports in a Deepwater Horizon clean-up worker’s personal-injury suit brought under the multi-district litigation master settlement agreement; and (2) whether summary judgment for the defendants was proper in the absence of competent evidence.
    • Under either de novo or abuse-of-discretion review, the district court acted within its authority to manage its docket by enforcing the expert-report deadline after granting a 23-month extension. Because Breaux’s opposition to summary judgment relied solely on his request for a stay and offered no competent evidence, summary judgment was proper.
  • Jimenez v. Guerrero, 25-10946, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Richman, Ramirez) (no oral argument); prisoner suit
    • Dismissing appeal from dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s sec. 1983 claims, for untimely notice of appeal.
  • United States v. Thomas Eugene Coulson, 25-11118, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Lancaster v. Slavich, 25-50111, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Duncan, Engelhardt) (no oral argument), Bivens claim
    • Affirming dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s Bivens claim.
    • At issue on appeal was (1) whether a Texas prisoner stated a viable Bivens claim against federal officers; and (2) whether dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) was proper.
    • IFP status was granted because Lancaster raised a nonfrivolous issue regarding the Heck v. Humphrey bar, but the dismissal was affirmed on the alternative ground that his claims did not fall within the Bivens remedy and extension of Bivens was not warranted. The dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g), and Lancaster was warned that three strikes will bar future IFP filings.
  • United States v. Michael Lott, 25-30124, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • White v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., 25-40647, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Wilson, Douglas) (no oral argument), improper joinder, foreclosure
    • On appeal the issues were (1) whether two non-diverse defendants (a law firm and a title company) were improperly joined, permitting removal under diversity jurisdiction; (2) whether summary judgment for Fifth Third Bank and Fannie Mae was proper in a wrongful-foreclosure suit; and (3) whether the pro se plaintiff’s due process rights were violated by discovery and case-management rulings.
    • The district court properly found Mackie Wolf and AVT Title improperly joined because they asserted no claim to the property and could not be proper defendants for quiet title or foreclosure-challenge claims. The “split-the-note” theory underlying White’s suit is not viable under Texas law, and his alternative arguments—including that he satisfied the debt with a self-created “silver surety bond”—were meritless. White’s due process challenge to the court’s discovery rulings also failed because he identified no missing evidence that affected the outcome.
  • United States v. Julius Augillard, 25-30192, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Clement, Douglas, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming in part and vacating in part 70-month sentence and supervised release terms for felon-in-possession of a firearm.
    • At issue on appeal was (1) whether his 2011 Louisiana conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine qualified as a “controlled substance offense” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3), given that Louisiana’s definition of cocaine did not expressly exclude Ioflupane as the federal Controlled Substances Act does; (2) whether the four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony was supported by the evidence; (3) whether the written judgment conflicted with the district court’s oral pronouncement of a supervised-release condition; and (4) whether § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment.
    • On issue (1), the court held that neither United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022), nor Brown v. United States, 602 U.S. 101 (2024), abrogated the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 853 F.3d 218 (5th Cir. 2017), which requires a defendant challenging a prior conviction under the categorical approach to point to an actual case showing that the state applied its statute in the broader, non-generic manner. Because Augillard could not identify a Louisiana prosecution for Ioflupane, the realistic probability test was not satisfied and the enhanced base offense level stood. On issue (2), the enhancement was upheld because the volume and packaging of drugs found on Augillard during Mardi Gras—along with a loaded firearm—plausibly supported a finding that the firearm facilitated drug distribution. On issue (3), the court agreed that the written judgment improperly broadened a discretionary drug-treatment condition beyond the oral pronouncement, vacated that portion, and remanded for correction. On issue (4), the Second Amendment challenge was foreclosed by circuit precedent.
  • United States v. Sharmaine Jackson, 25-30570, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming application of the vulnerable-victim enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b) at sentencing for conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
    • The district court’s finding that the victims—older bank customers with large account balances who did not frequently check their accounts—were unusually vulnerable was plausible and not clearly erroneous.
  • Wang v. Blanche, 25-60611, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), immigration
    • Denying petition for review of BIA order dismissing appeal of IJ’s removal order.
  • Thomas v. Pate, 25-30619, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), habeas corpus
    • At issue on appeal was whether the district court erred in dismissing a federal prisoner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the validity of his drug-distribution and possession convictions.
    • Thomas’s brief addressed only the denial of his motion for reconsideration, but he never filed a notice of appeal from that order, so it was not before the court. Because Thomas failed to brief any challenge to the district court’s actual reasons for dismissing the § 2241 petition, those issues were abandoned.
  • United States v. Joshua Bosley, 25-30240, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
    • At issue on appeal was whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Bosley’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), including whether it erred by not considering whether Bosley identified an extraordinary and compelling reason under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(5).
    • The court did not need to reach the extraordinary-and-compelling-reason question because Bosley failed to show the district court abused its discretion in denying relief based on the § 3553(a) factors. The district court found that Bosley remained a danger to the public despite his chronic kidney disease, given his criminal history and the fact that he committed the offense while already suffering from the disease, and that a sentence reduction would not reflect the seriousness of the offense or promote respect for the law. Bosley’s motion for appointment of counsel was also denied.
  • Semien v. Bergman, 25-40571, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), sec. 1983
    • Affirming dismissal of due process claims.
    • At issue was whether a pro se plaintiff adequately alleged (1) a conspiracy to deny due process based on a protected property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) a conspiracy to deny equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, in a civil rights suit against the Liberty County District Attorney, the City of Liberty, Liberty County, and the Liberty Police Department.
    • Semien abandoned several claims on appeal, including those against the Liberty Police Department, state-law tort claims, and his claim to compel a criminal prosecution. On the merits, the court found that Semien failed to allege a protected property interest sufficient to state a due process conspiracy claim, and failed to allege a specific comparator needed for an equal protection conspiracy claim. Because no constitutional violation was adequately alleged, his remaining contentions were without merit.
  • United States v. Vernell Woodard, 25-30137, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Smith, Stewart) (no oral argument), criminal, guilty plea, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence and aiding and abetting.
    • At issue on appeal was (1) whether an adequate factual basis existed for Woodard’s guilty plea to brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence and aiding and abetting; (2) whether the district court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11; and (3) whether the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
    • An adequate factual basis supported the plea. Though the district court did not inform Woodard of its restitution authority under Rule 11(b)(1)(K), Woodard failed to show he would not have entered the plea had he been so informed, meaning the error was not reversible. No clear error in the factual basis for sentencing, no plain procedural error, and no substantive unreasonableness were shown.