Unpublished decisions
- United States v. Asberry, 25-11337, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Barksdale, Graves, Higginson) (no oral argument), criminal, sufficiency of evidence
- Affirming conviction on drug charges.
- Following a jury conviction on one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances (21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1)) and four counts of possession with intent to distribute, Asberry raised three challenges: (1) that the district court violated his right to be present at the start of trial by removing him for disruptive behavior; (2) that discrepancies between the charging instrument and the jury verdict form constituted a constructive amendment requiring a new trial; and (3) that the evidence was insufficient to prove he knowingly joined the charged drug conspiracy.
- The court applied plain-error review to the first two unpreserved issues. On the right-to-be-present claim, the court held that trial had commenced under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 when preliminary matters (including Asberry’s jail clothing and desire to proceed pro se) were addressed, and Asberry’s persistent disruptive conduct justified his removal. On the constructive-amendment claim, the court found no clear-or-obvious error because the jury charge and verdict form accurately described the charges in the operative Second Superseding Indictment despite a clerical reference to the earlier “Superseding Indictment.” On sufficiency of the evidence, reviewing de novo, the court found the evidence—including text messages coordinating purchases and sales and Asberry’s arrest with large quantities of drugs packaged for distribution—was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- United States v. Hopkins, 25-20477, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Higginson, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- Alcala v. Bosco Auto Group, 25-40213, appeal from E.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Higginson, Douglas) (no oral argument), Truth in Lending Act
- Affirming dismissal of TILA claims.
- Pro se plaintiff Virginia Alcala sued Bosco Auto Group for an alleged violation of the Truth in Lending Act arising from a vehicle purchase. The district court dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6). On appeal, Alcala argued the consolidation of her case with a related suit was improper, that TILA’s rescission right applied, that res judicata barred the dismissal, that her Seventh Amendment jury-trial right was violated, that the magistrate judge was biased, and that her post-judgment motion was wrongly denied.
- The court found none of Alcala’s arguments availing, holding that consolidation was proper given common questions of law or fact, the TILA text contradicted her rescission argument, res judicata was not involved in the dismissal, a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal did not violate the Seventh Amendment, the record did not support judicial bias, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the post-judgment motion.
- United States v. Madrid-Rivas, 25-50461, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt) (no oral argument), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- State of Texas v. Center for Biological Diversity, 25-51058, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Smith, Graves, Ho) (oral argument), Endangered Species Act, intervention
- Reversing denial of intervention in challenge to ESA listing, and remanding for further proceedings.
- After the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the dunes sagebrush lizard as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, Texas filed suit to overturn the listing. Following the change in presidential administration, the Center for Biological Diversity moved to intervene under Rule 24(a) to defend the listing, but the district court denied intervention, finding the government defendants adequately represented the Center’s interests. The central question was whether the Center satisfied the four-element test for intervention of right, particularly the inadequate-representation requirement.
- Applying the framework from the recent precedent in State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Interior, 2026 WL 2672757 (5th Cir. Sep. 11, 2026), the court held the Center rebutted the presumption of adequate representation by pointing to announced changes in agency priorities, the Government’s abandonment of similarly situated ESA listings, and the Government’s decision to settle and vacate the listing at issue—demonstrating disagreement on the core question of whether the listing was lawful. The Center also satisfied the remaining three elements: timeliness was undisputed, the Center had a direct interest from its years-long effort to secure the listing, and an adverse result could impair the Center’s ability to protect that interest.
- United States v. Goodspeed, 26-10198, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Higginson, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- United States v. Cowart, 26-10264, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt) (no oral argument), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- United States v. Monrajas, 26-10298, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Higginson, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming revocation of supervised release and 10-month imprisonment sentence, rejecting argument for the first time on appeal that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) is unconstitutional under United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634 (2019), because it requires revocation and imprisonment without a jury trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Monrajas conceded his argument was foreclosed by United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020).
- United States v. Jones, 26-10308, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Stewart, Duncan) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming revocation of supervised release and a 12-month imprisonment sentence, rejecting argument for the first time on appeal that (1) 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) is unconstitutional under Haymond, and (2) the district court violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury determination of whether he committed a crime in violation of his supervised release terms.
- Jones conceded both arguments were foreclosed by Garner and United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 2005).
- United States v. Overman, 26-10486, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming revocation of supervised release and a nine-month imprisonment sentence, rejecting argument for the first time on appeal that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) is unconstitutional under Haymond.
- Overman conceded his argument was foreclosed by Garner.
- Ross v. Target Corporation, 26-20180, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Higginson, Douglas) (no oral argument), personal tort, expert witness
- Affirming summary judgment for defendant on premises liability claims.
- Erica Anderson Ross sued Target for negligence and premises liability after being struck by a warehouse cart in a Target store. She failed to designate expert witnesses by the court’s deadline, then sought leave to designate over two dozen experts approximately two-and-a-half months late and days before docket call, without providing summaries of expert opinions. The district court excluded the late-designated experts and subsequently granted Target’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Ross could not prove causation without expert testimony given her extensive pre-existing medical conditions.
- Applying the four-factor test for exclusion of untimely designated experts, the court found: (1) Ross’s internal calendaring error was insufficient to constitute good cause; (2) the testimony’s critical importance to Ross’s case underscored the need for compliance with deadlines; (3) Target faced substantial prejudice from the lack of substantive information about the experts’ proposed testimony just weeks before trial; and (4) a continuance would not have fully cured the prejudice. On summary judgment, the court held that under Texas law, expert testimony was necessary to establish causation given Ross’s pre-existing conditions, and Ross conceded she could not prove her claims without such testimony.
- Francis v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al., 26-30009, appeal from W.D. La.
- per curiam (Elrod, Wilson, Douglas) (no oral argument), civil
- Dismissing as frivolous appeal of dismissal of suit against multiple credit reporting agencies, creditors, and other defendants for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court found Francis’s claims implausible and his arguments—which included fictitious caselaw citations—not even arguable on the merits. The court denied his motion for judicial notice and warned that future frivolous or abusive filings could subject him to sanctions.
- United States v. Cano-Quintero, 26-50208, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Higginson, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry, rejecting argument that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional.
- The court held the argument foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).
- Corson v. Alvarez, et al., 26-50252, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Clement, Haynes, Ramirez) (no oral argument), prisoner suit
- Affirming in part and vacating in part dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s claims.
- Texas prisoner Vincent Corson appealed the dismissal of his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), raising three issues: (1) whether he stated a claim for prospective relief from ongoing constitutional violations under the Ex Parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment, based on alleged constitutionally deficient prison shakedown procedures that deprived him of noncontraband items without pre-deprivation hearings; (2) whether he stated a personal-capacity procedural due process claim against corrections officers for confiscating his textbooks; and (3) whether the district court erred in denying his Rule 60(b) motion.
- The court vacated the dismissal of Corson’s prospective-relief claim, finding he alleged ongoing violations of federal law sufficient to proceed under Ex Parte Young. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the personal-capacity due process claim under the Parratt/Hudson doctrine because Corson failed to allege that Texas lacks an adequate post-deprivation remedy. The court also affirmed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion.
- United States v. Montero-Duran, 26-50293, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt) (no oral argument), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- United States v. Perdomo-Hernandez, 26-50332, c/w 26-50333, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry as well as the revocation of supervised release in a prior case, rejecting argument that the enhancement in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional.
- The court held the constitutional challenge foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).
- Mallory v. City of Hattiesburg, et al., 26-60065, appeal from S.D. Miss.
- per curiam (Jones, Southwick, Duncan) (oral argument withdrawn), sec. 1983
- Affirming dismissal of claims regarding traffic violations.
- Gerry Mallory sued the City of Hattiesburg, Intellisafe, Inc., three Hattiesburg prosecutors, and the Chief of the Hattiesburg Police Department, alleging violations of state and federal law stemming from Intellisafe’s agreement with Hattiesburg to administer traffic citations. The district court dismissed the claims on various grounds.
- The court found no reversible error after reviewing the district court’s opinion, the parties’ briefs, and the record, and affirmed under Rule 47.6.
