November 10, 2026, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Unpublished decisions

  • Pettieway v. Supervisor Kelly, et al., 25-30714, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Clement, Engelhardt, Wilson) (no oral argument), § 1983
    • Dismissing appeal of summary judgment dismissal of § 1983 claims, due to untimely notice of appeal.
    • Marlon James Pettieway appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The threshold question was whether his appeal was timely. Pettieway’s deadline to appeal was November 10, 2025, but he did not file a notice of appeal until November 24, 2025. He had filed an “Objection” to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on October 15, 2025, and the court considered whether that filing could be liberally construed as a timely notice of appeal under Hernandez v. Thaler.
    • The court held that, even under liberal construction of pro se pleadings, Pettieway’s October 15 objection sought relief from the magistrate judge’s non-final report and recommendation—not appellate review of a final order—and therefore did not constitute a timely notice of appeal.
  • Nolan v. Buchanan, et al., 25-30724, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt) (no oral argument), § 1983
    • Affirming dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s § 1983 claims.
    • Antonio Lashun Nolan, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appealed the dismissal of his § 1983 suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court addressed three issues: (1) whether the magistrate judge’s use of a questionnaire and instruction not to repeat allegations violated Nolan’s due-process rights; (2) whether the Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination rule barred Nolan’s unlawful-arrest claim because it arose from the same facts as his resisting-arrest conviction; and (3) whether administrative coding errors in his case classification warranted reversal or remand.
    • The court found no substantive or procedural error. The magistrate judge’s use of a questionnaire was proper and the report and recommendation considered all of Nolan’s prior pleadings. The Heck bar applied because Nolan’s unlawful-arrest claim arose from the same facts as his resisting-arrest conviction.
  • United States v. Romero Blount, 25-50836, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Higginson, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Vacating two special conditions of supervised release portion of sentence, otherwise affirming, and remanding for entry of amended sentence.
    • Jorge Ivan Romero Blount pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He challenged two standard conditions of supervised release—a financial-disclosure condition and a credit-approval condition—as violating 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). The Government agreed the conditions were erroneous and moved to vacate the sentence. The parties disagreed on the proper remedy.
    • The court agreed that the two supervised release conditions failed to comply with § 3583(d), citing United States v. Mendoza. It vacated the two erroneous conditions, otherwise affirmed the district court’s judgment, and remanded for entry of an amended written judgment.
  • Gore v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 25-60625, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Richman, Ramirez) (oral argument), insurance, forfeiting argument, expert witness
    • Affirming summary judgment for insurer on coverage and bad faith claims.
    • Wendy Gore appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing her claims against State Farm for breach of contract (structural damage, personal property, and living expenses provisions), bad faith, misrepresentation, and breach of her right to privacy, all arising from a 2023 house fire. Central issues included: (1) whether Gore forfeited her arguments by failing to marshal evidence—she submitted 1,385 pages into the record but provided insufficient citations; (2) whether photographs and lay testimony alone could prove structural damage without expert testimony; (3) whether Gore’s failure to provide documentation to State Farm defeated her personal-property breach claim; (4) whether the bad-faith claim survived absent a viable breach-of-contract claim; (5) whether Gore stated a prima facie negligent-misrepresentation claim; and (6) whether State Farm’s request for income and tax information violated Gore’s right to privacy.
    • The court held that Gore forfeited her arguments by failing to properly marshal evidence and, even viewing the limited citations she provided in the light most favorable to her, she failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on any claim. Expert testimony was required to establish structural damage, and Gore did not offer any. Her personal-property claim failed because she did not comply with the policy’s documentation requirements. The bad-faith claim could not survive absent a viable breach-of-contract claim. The misrepresentation claim failed because Gore did not identify a specific misrepresentation or resulting damages. The privacy claim failed because Gore offered no evidence that State Farm’s financial inquiries were unreasonable.
  • United States v. Suarez Alamo, 26-10255, 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. Moreno-Lopez, 26-50354, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Ho, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
    • Raul Alfonso Moreno-Lopez was convicted of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and argued for the first time on appeal that the sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. Moreno-Lopez acknowledged that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).
    • The court agreed the argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres and binding circuit precedent, noting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United States confirmed that Almendarez-Torres “persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction.”
  • Thomas v. Judge Denn Whalen, et al., 26-50371, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Ho, Engelhardt) (no oral argument), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 claims.
    • Joshua Greg Thomas, a Texas state prisoner, sought to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a nonfrivolous claim. The court evaluated whether Thomas raised any arguable legal point on the merits. Thomas stated only that he had “learned and gained knowledge of what the court expects” and believed he could better explain his claims, but he did not address the district court’s reasons for dismissal.
    • The court found that Thomas abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal by failing to address its reasoning, and declined to consider new claims and evidence not presented below. The court noted that both the district court’s dismissal and this appellate dismissal count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), giving Thomas two strikes total, and warned that a third strike would bar him from proceeding IFP while incarcerated unless he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury.
  • United States v. Villa, 26-50385, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
    • Cesar Villa was convicted of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) and argued for the first time on appeal that the sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. Villa acknowledged that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and sought to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review.
    • The court held that Villa’s sole argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres and binding precedent, including United States v. Pervis and the Supreme Court’s confirmation in Erlinger that the Almendarez-Torres exception persists.