Unpublished decisions
- United States v. Quintana, 25-11264, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Higginson, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, search and seizure
- Affirming conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, upholding denial of motion to suppress.
- At issue on appeal was whether a state trooper had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop for a K-9 sniff of the defendant’s vehicle. Quintana pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search.
- The court found that the totality of the circumstances—including Quintana’s inconsistent and implausible statements about his travel plans, his traveling on a known drug corridor in a car rented for only 24 hours, his occupation as a truck driver, and the manner in which he stored his luggage—supported a finding of reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. The district court therefore did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
- United States v. Martinez-Herrera, 25-50909, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Smith, Southwick, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming 24-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
- At issue on appeal was whether an above-guidelines sentence of 24 months for illegal reentry was substantively unreasonable. Martinez-Herrera argued the district court gave undue weight to his prior convictions (already accounted for by the guidelines) and too little weight to the guideline range itself.
- The court held that a sentencing court may conclude that the advisory guidelines range gives insufficient weight to one or more § 3553(a) factors, including the defendant’s history and characteristics. The upward variance was “commensurate with the individualized, case-specific reasons provided by the district court,” and the Fifth Circuit has upheld similar or greater variances in comparable cases.
- United States v. Cruz-Ventura, 25-50944, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt) (no oral argument), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- Watts v. Davis et al., 26-20014, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Higginson, Willett, Oldham) (no oral argument), prisoner suit
- Dismissing for lack of timely notice of appeal, appeal from dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 claims.
- Because there was no timely notice of appeal, the Fifth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims, citing Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Watts’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was denied.
- United States v. Guerrero-Frias, 26-20058, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Higginson, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- Rios v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C., 26-50098, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Richman, Oldham) (no oral argument), personal tort
- Affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant on premises liability claim.
- At issue on appeal was whether a premises-liability plaintiff produced sufficient evidence that Wal-Mart had actual or constructive knowledge of a misaligned shopping-cart corral that allegedly created a trip hazard in its parking lot. Rios tripped over the corral’s metal crossbar, which had become slightly elevated after the corral shifted from asphalt onto a higher concrete curb extension.
- On de novo review, the court found that Rios’s two theories of knowledge both failed. First, his “creation” theory failed because video showing an unidentified Wal-Mart employee in the corral three minutes before the accident did not show the employee actually moved the corral, and no other evidence suggested Wal-Mart caused the displacement. Second, his constructive-knowledge theory failed under Texas’s time-notice rule because Rios produced no temporal evidence of how long the misalignment had existed.
- The court also rejected Rios’s reliance on Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1983), an “exceptional case” that applies only to conditions dangerous from the inception of their use—not conditions that become dangerous over time. Because Rios produced no evidence that the cart corral or its original placement was inherently dangerous at inception, Corbin was inapplicable.
