Take the Fifth

Unpublished decisions

• United States v. Hernandez-Mata, 25-40678, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• United States v. Harris, 25-11051, c/w 25-11054, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• Jones-Timms v. Freedom Chevrolet Buick GMC, 25-11147, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Stewart, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), jurisdiction, civil, amendment
  • Vacating dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s civil action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim and order denying leave to amend; and remanding for further proceedings under the further amended complaint.
  • The court granted Jones-Timms’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, finding the appeal raised nonfrivolous issues. The court held that dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was erroneous because Jones-Timms’s claims invoking federal statutes were not “patently without merit.” It further held that the district court erred by failing to consider the amended complaint—which superseded the original under Rule 15(a)(1)(A)—and effectively deprived Jones-Timms of an opportunity to seek leave to amend. The court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of whether Jones-Timms should be permitted to further amend his complaint.

• United States v. Ayika, 25-50587, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Stewart, Engelhardt, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, forfeiture
  • Vacating turnover order to transfer bank accounts to satisfy defendant’s criminal restitution award, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • At issue on appeal was whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing a turnover order directing transfer of bank accounts to satisfy a criminal restitution obligation, where the defendant argued (1) the accounts were held under the Texas Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (TUTMA) and were his children’s property; (2) the order violated his due process rights for lack of notice; (3) he was current on his payment schedule; and (4) the Government was estopped from relitigating forfeiture of the accounts.
  • The court declined to reverse on the TUTMA argument, finding that even assuming TUTMA accounts are not the custodian’s property, Ayika’s own conduct was inconsistent with the role of a mere custodian—including his prior agreement to forfeit the funds, his assertion of legal ownership, and his direction that funds be sent to his brother rather than his adult children—making the turnover order sustainable under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. However, the court vacated and remanded on due process grounds because it was unknown whether Ayika’s now-adult children would have filed claims to the accounts if given the opportunity to be heard. The court rejected the law-of-the-case/estoppel argument, holding that the earlier ruling on forfeitability was a distinct issue from restitution under the MVRA. The court also rejected the payment-compliance argument, distinguishing United States v. Hughes because the judgment here required immediate restitution and did not establish a payment schedule. The case was vacated and remanded for the district court to notify Ayika’s children and establish deadlines for claims and responses.

• United States v. Williams, 24-11109, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• United States v. Obaze, 25-20221, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, guilty plea
  • Affirming guilty-plea conviction.
  • At issue on appeal were (1) whether claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were reviewable on direct appeal; and (2) whether the defendant’s guilty plea was involuntary because he allegedly did not understand his sentencing liability.
  • The court declined to review Obaze’s ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal, citing United States v. Isgar. The court further held that the claim of an involuntary plea was contradicted by the record, including Obaze’s own testimony at the plea hearing, and he failed to show error, plain or otherwise.

• McMillian v. City of Aberdeen, 25-60587, appeal from N.D. Miss.
  • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), Title VI, § 1983, amendment, employment discrimination
  • Affirming race-discrimination claims and denial of leave to amend.
  • At issue on appeal were (1) whether the district court erred in dismissing McMillian’s race-discrimination claims under Title VI and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 for failure to state a claim; and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to file a second amended complaint.
  • The court found that McMillian’s factual allegations—that he is Black, was initially approved for a position, was moved to a lower-paying department due to budget constraints, and three white males were later hired in the original department—described “a disappointing employment outcome” but did not “plausibly allege race discrimination.” The court further held that granting leave to amend would have been futile because McMillian offered the same arguments and evidence previously presented, and any amendment would fail to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

• United States v. Herrera-Mancillas, 25-11135, 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. Boling, 25-11022, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.