Take the Fifth

Unpublished decisions

• Swindle v. Wingfield, 25-60577, appeal from S.D. Miss.
  • per curiam (Stewart, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), habeas corpus
  • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of § 2244 petition challenging convictions for receipt and possession of child pornography, and whether his actual-innocence claim satisfied the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
  • Relying on Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023), the court held that Swindle failed to demonstrate unusual circumstances making it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court, and his actual-innocence argument did not create an equitable exception to the savings clause. His Eighth Amendment claim was deemed abandoned for failure to challenge the district court’s ruling on it.

• United States v. Adams, 25-50063, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, guilty plea
  • Affirming guilty plea conviction of aiding and abetting possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, finding no plain error in factual basis for plea and that the district court properly ensured that Adams understood the nature of the charge.

• United States v. Allen, 25-30512, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• Roberson v. DeAnda, 25-50093, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Elrod, Richman, Willett) (oral argument), § 1983, qualified immunity
  • Affirming qualified immunity summary judgment for officer defendants on excessive force and bystander liability claims.
  • At issue on appeal were (1) whether officers had probable cause to arrest Roberson for interference with public duties under Texas Penal Code § 38.15; (2) whether the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (3) whether bystander officers were liable for failure to intervene; and (4) whether Roberson could raise a property-damage claim he failed to brief below.
  • The court affirmed summary judgment for all officers on qualified immunity grounds. It found probable cause existed because Roberson repeatedly refused officers’ orders to step aside and physically interrupted an ongoing investigation, which constituted interference with public duties. Additionally, Roberson’s act of pulling his arms away from officers constituted resisting arrest, independently supporting probable cause. Applying the Graham v. Connor factors and body-camera footage, the court concluded the force used was not excessive. Bystander liability failed because no underlying constitutional violation occurred. The property-damage claim was forfeited because Roberson did not adequately raise it in district court briefing.

• United States v. Haynes, 25-11093, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• United States v. Rivera, 26-50164, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, pretrial detention, appellate jurisdiction
  • Dismissing appeal as untimely from denial of motion to revoke pretrial detention.
  • The court granted the Government’s motion and dismissed the appeal as untimely because the notice of appeal was filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit. Citing Eberhart v. United States, the court held that when the Government seeks to enforce these mandatory claims-processing rules, dismissal is required.

• Ricks v. DMA Companies, 25-50444, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), civil
  • Affirming judgment for defendant, with no description of claims or appellate issue.

• United States v. Ledoux, 26-30130, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, pretrial detention
  • Affirming revocation of magistrate’s pretrial release order and ordering pretrial detention.
  • At issue on appeal were (1) whether the district court provided adequate reasons for revoking the magistrate judge’s release order and ordering pretrial detention; and (2) whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors supported detention. Ledoux was charged with conspiracy, cyberstalking, transmission of threats through interstate commerce, making false explosive-threat reports, and (in a separate proceeding) possession of child pornography.
  • The court found the district court’s written order, read in context, gave adequate reasons for detention. Evaluating only the district court’s independent order (not the magistrate judge’s), the court held the evidence as a whole supported detention—all § 3142(g) factors at least partially favored it—and Ledoux failed to show an abuse of discretion.