Unpublished decisions
- United States v. Ruiz, 25-11300, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Haynes, Graves, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming sentence on conviction of production of child pornography.
- At issue on appeal was (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in rejecting a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement that called for 360 months of imprisonment — half the guidelines range — for two counts of production of child pornography; and (2) whether the district court impermissibly double-counted conduct by applying both a § 3D1.4 two-level enhancement and a § 4B1.5(b)(1) five-level enhancement.
- The district court gave case-specific reasons for finding the agreed-upon 360-month sentence would be unduly lenient and did not abuse its discretion. On the double-counting claim, the court held that nothing in §§ 3D1.4 or 4B1.5 expressly precludes cumulative application, and § 4B1.5(b)(1) specifically states it is assessed in addition to any Chapter Three adjustment.
- United States v. Mack, 25-20347, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Jones, Graves, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
- Dismissing appeal of sentence, on basis of appeal-waiver.
- Defendant challenged the denial of a mitigating-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 and sought additional offense-level reductions under §§ 2D1.1(b)(17) and 2D1.1(a)(5) following her guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl. The Government argued the appeal was barred by a valid appeal waiver.
- The court found the appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary and applied to the circumstances at hand. Mack neither challenged nor addressed the waiver’s validity, and counsel was warned that pursuing an appeal contrary to a valid waiver without responding to the Government’s invocation of it could result in sanctions.
- United States v. Contreras, 25-20410, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Stewart, Richman, Higginson) (no oral argument), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- Adu-Gyamfi v. Marmaxx Operating Corp., 25-20581, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Higginson, Douglas) (no oral argument), personal tort
- Affirming summary judgment dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s personal tort claims.
- Pro se plaintiffs appealed summary judgment in favor of T.J. Maxx and its parent company in a tort action arising from a customer’s death in a store, raising claims for premises liability, negligence, wrongful death, and survival.
- The plaintiffs failed to brief any specific challenge to the dismissal of their negligence, wrongful death, survival, or defective-metal-rack claims, thereby abandoning them. On the surviving premises-liability claim, the court found plaintiffs failed to establish the required elements under Texas law. The motion for appointment of counsel was denied.
- Neal v. Vannoy, 25-30705, appeal from E.D. La.
- per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt) (no oral argument), habeas corpus
- Affirming dismissal of § 2254 petition as an unauthorized successive habeas petition.
- Louisiana state prisoner appealed the district court’s treatment of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application as an unauthorized second or successive petition. Neal raised two new ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims based on a serology report and DNA-testing evidence, arguing the claims were not ripe at the time of his first petition and that Martinez v. Ryan provided an exception.
- The court held that a petitioner cannot avoid the successive-petition bar simply because new claims were unexhausted at the time of the first petition, citing Burton v. Stewart. The Martinez exception did not apply because Neal’s petition did not allege his state habeas counsel was ineffective; and even if it did, Martinez does not authorize successive federal applications.
- United States v. Quintanilla, 25-40570, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Higginson, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, sentence reduction
- Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction.
- Defendant, serving 200 months for fraud and money-laundering convictions, appealed the denial of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821, arguing the district court failed to properly calculate the amended guidelines range and consider § 3553(a) factors.
- The district court’s order reflected that it considered all relevant information, the record, the presentence report, and the Guidelines. The court specifically found that a further reduction would not provide just punishment or adequate deterrence, and that Quintanilla had already received a below-guidelines variance at original sentencing. Quintanilla’s arguments amounted to a mere disagreement with the court’s weighing of the factors and did not demonstrate an abuse of discretion.
- Berrocal v. San Antonio Police Department, 25-50742, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Higginson, Willett, Oldham) (no oral argument), § 1983
- Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of § 1983 claims.
- Pro se plaintiff sought to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against numerous city and county officials, arguing his due process rights were violated because arrests, detention, and physical injury prevented him from responding to motions.
- The court found the due process claim was frivolous because the district court had granted an early stay for Berrocal’s incarceration, gave him multiple opportunities to respond, and noted he had filed pleadings in an unrelated case during the same period. All remaining arguments were abandoned for failure to meaningfully brief them.
- United States v. Gonzalez-Ramirez, 25-50994, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Haynes, Graves, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- Davis v. Biery, 25-51023, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Smith, Southwick, Oldham) (no oral argument), habeas corpus
- Dismissing as moot appeal from dismissal of § 2241 petition.
- Federal prisoner appealed dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition seeking appointment of counsel for the remainder of his criminal proceeding.
- Because Davis had already been convicted, sentenced, and his case was on direct appeal, the request for counsel was moot. Related motions for appointment of counsel, an evidentiary hearing, and judicial notice were denied.
- Gonzales v. Brawley, 26-10043, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Barksdale, Graves, Higginson) (no oral argument), habeas corpus
- Affirming denial of § 2241 petition.
- Federal prisoner challenged the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, arguing he was entitled to apply earned-time credits under § 3632 of the First Step Act.
- Because Gonzales was subject to a final order of removal, he was statutorily ineligible to apply time credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i). The Bureau of Prisons provided evidence of the removal order, and Gonzales did not contend otherwise. His request for appointed counsel was also denied for failure to show exceptional circumstances.
- Stevenson v. Nail, 26-30081, appeal from W.D. La.
- per curiam (Haynes, Graves, Ramirez) (no oral argument), prisoner suit
- Affirming summary judgment dismissal of Louisiana state prisoner’s § 1983 claims.
- Louisiana state prisoner appealed summary judgment in favor of a corrections officer on an excessive-force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging both the district court’s evidentiary rulings excluding a cellmate’s written statement and denying a motion to supplement the summary judgment record, and the merits of the summary judgment.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the cellmate’s original written statement did not qualify as competent summary judgment evidence or in denying the motion to supplement.
- United States v. Bennette, 26-40035, appeal from E.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Haynes, Graves, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine
- Defendant argued for the first time on appeal that the district court erred by (1) failing to advise him of applicable forfeiture before accepting his guilty plea, and (2) omitting forfeiture from the oral pronouncement of sentence. Both issues were reviewed for plain error.
- Even assuming clear or obvious error, Bennette could not satisfy the third prong of plain-error review — that the error affected his substantial rights. The record showed he had prior notice of forfeiture through his indictment and arraignment, never objected to later forfeiture references, and there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed.
- United States v. Szpaizman-Garcia, 26-40099, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Higginson, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- Robles-Zuniga v. Blanche, 26-60153, petition for review of BIA order
- per curiam (King, Higginson, Douglas) (no oral argument), immigration
- Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA’s dismissal of her appeal from the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- The core issue was whether her proposed particular social groups — Honduran women, abandoned women in Honduras, single and unprotected women in Honduras, and single and unprotected mothers with children in Honduras — were cognizable. She also challenged the CAT denial, arguing the Honduran government’s failure to secure a conviction of her persecutor constituted governmental acquiescence to torture.
- The BIA properly rejected the proposed particular social groups based on binding Fifth Circuit precedent in Jaco v. Garland and Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, finding they lacked particularity and social distinction. On the CAT claim, substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding: when Robles-Zuniga reported an attempted attack to police, they responded by detaining the perpetrator, and the government’s failure to secure a conviction did not constitute sufficient state action under circuit precedent.
- Frickey v. X Corp., 26-60202, appeal from N.D. Miss.
- per curiam (Graves, Wilson, Ramirez) (no oral argument), § 1983
- Dismissing as frivolous dismissal of constitutional claims.
- Pro se plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her approximately 121-page, 28-defendant complaint alleging a vast nationwide conspiracy to violate her constitutional rights under 18 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and the denial of her Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), also finding it violated Rule 8, was barred by sovereign and qualified immunity, improperly sought relief against private actors for constitutional violations, and failed to plead the essential elements of a § 1985(3) conspiracy.
- Frickey continued to advance the same irrational and incredible allegations and raised no nonfrivolous argument that the district court abused its discretion. She also failed to meaningfully brief any challenge to the alternative grounds for dismissal and showed no abuse of discretion in the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion.
