April 28, 2026, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Aramark Services, Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 24-40323, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (en banc) (oral argument at panel stage); en banc, arbitration, ERISA
    • Granting en banc rehearing of December 18, 2025, panel opinion (Higginbotham, Jones, Southwick; Jones, J., dissenting in part), that had affirmed that the threshold question of arbitrability belonged to the court because the master services agreement between the parties did not “clearly and unmistakably” delegate that question to an arbitrator, and that had held that, although the arbitration clause incorporated the AAA Rules (which often signals delegation), it also contained a carve-out excluding claims seeking “injunctive relief or any other form of equitable relief,” and that the plaintiff sought equitable rather than legal relief. Judge Jones had agreed with the holding regarding arbitrability but had sharply dissented from allowing Aramark to pursue money damages against Aetna under ERISA § 502(a)(3), contending that the majority “mistakenly reads both Supreme Court authority and the limits of ‘typical’ equitable remedies.”

Unpublished decisions

  • United States v. Lubiano-Vidales, 25-40384, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • United States v. Vargas-Duque, 25-30475, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Clement, Southwick, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • United States v. Diaz, 25-11133, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • United States v. Negron-Cardona, 25-11031, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • United States v. Bello, 25-40725, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Richman, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, forfeiture, sentence reduction
    • Dismissing appeal in part and affirming in part order of forfeiture and denial of motion for sentence reduction.
    • The issues on appeal were (1) whether defendant Olamide Olatayo Bello had standing to appeal the district court’s final order of forfeiture, where his interest in the forfeited property had already been resolved by the preliminary order of forfeiture at sentencing; and (2) whether Bello was eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines, given that he was sentenced after the amendment’s effective date of November 1, 2023.
    • The court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss in part, holding that Bello lacked standing to challenge the final order of forfeiture because a final order of forfeiture determines the rights of third parties, not the defendant, and Bello’s interest was already resolved at sentencing via the preliminary order.
    • The court granted summary affirmance of the district court’s denial of Bello’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, because the plain language of the statute limits eligibility to defendants sentenced based on a range “subsequently” lowered—and Bello was sentenced after Amendment 821 took effect, making him ineligible. Bello did not challenge this ruling in his opening brief or in his opposition to the Government’s motion.
    • Bello had explicitly abandoned his appeals of the preliminary forfeiture order, the denial of his motion for a new trial, his motion for designation of record on appeal, and the order dismissing the original indictment. The court denied all of Bello’s remaining miscellaneous motions, including motions for judicial notice, motions to supplement the record, a motion to stay, a motion to suspend briefing, and motions to authorize transcript preparation at Government expense.
  • Kennedy v. Itawamba County Jail et al., 25-60592, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Jones, Higginson) (no oral argument), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing for lack of timely notice of appeal the appeal of Mississippi state prisoner’s § 1983 suit.