Designated for publication Wilson, J. (Smith, Clement, Wilson), WARN Act, summary judgment, jury right Appellate counsel from Fishman Haygood represented prevailing party. Affirming in part and reversing in part summary judgment dismissal of employees’ WARN Act claims against investment advisor of plaintiffs’ employer on violations of WARN Act. The Court affirmed the district court’s holding … More September 27, 2023, opinions
Unpublished per curiam (Jones, Stewart, Duncan), prisoner suit Affirming dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 claims. per curiam (Jolly, Dennis, Higginson), False Claims Act, qui tam Affirming in part and reversing in part dismissal of False Claims Act qui tam claims against housing authority and property management companies for federal housing regulations violations and … More September 22, 2023, opinions
Designated for publication Higginson, J. (Jolly, Dennis, Higginson), criminal, sufficiency of evidence Affirming conviction of transporting within the United States an alien who “has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law.” The Court held there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the person the defendant was … More September 20-21, 2023, opinions
Designated for publication per curiam (9 judges against rehearing: Stewart, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Engelhardt, Douglas; 7 judges for rehearing: Richman, Jones, Smith, Ho, Duncan, Oldham, Wilson), Smith, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing; criminal, search and seizure Denying en banc rehearing of May 10, 2023, panel opinion that vacated defendant’s conviction for … More September 19, 2023, opinions
Designated for publication Jones, J. (Jones, Stewart, Duncan), criminal, jury instructions, sentencing Affirming conviction of illegal reentry and 105-month sentence, finding no error in jury instruction or impropriety in enhancement of sentence for obstruction of justice. After the defendant had presented evidence that he had been acting under duress due to threats by the drug-smuggling … More September 14, 2023, opinions
Designated for publication Jones, J. (Jones, Clement, Haynes), Haynes, J., dissenting in part; diversity jurisdiction, sanctions Affirming dismissal of third-party claims as sanction for party’s deliberate “hiding of the ball” on L.L.C. citizenship/jurisdictional facts. The Court held that the district court’s power to issue a case-dispositive sanction fell within its collateral jurisdiction. The Court summed … More September 12, 2023, opinions
Designated for publication Higginson, J. (Smith, Southwick, Higginson), criminal, supervised release Affirming imposition of 15 “standard conditions” for terms of supervised release from district court’s Standing Order, where oral pronouncement included that the supervised release would be “subject to the standard conditions” but did not otherwise expressly articulate those conditions. Elrod, J. (Dennis, Elrod, Ho), … More September 8-11, 2023, opinions
Designated for publication per curiam (Richman, Jones, Stewart, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Douglas, JJ., voting against rehearing; Smith, Elrod, Ho, JJ., voting for rehearing); Ho, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc (joined by Smith, J.); § 1983 Denying rehearing en banc of panel opinion that affirmed dismissal of § 1983 … More August 23, 2023, opinions
Designated for publication Jones, J. (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), Oldham, J., dissenting; habeas corpus, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel Reversing in part and affirming in part denial of § 2255 petition; reversing district court’s application of procedural bar to claim of breach of plea agreement by Assistant U.S. Attorneys, but affirming disposition of IAC claim. … More August 17, 2023, opinions
Designated for publication Douglas, J. (Wiener, Graves, Douglas), prisoner suit Vacating dismissal of Louisiana state prisoner’s § 1983 suit as frivolous, and remanding for further proceedings. The Court held that the magistrate and district court judges abused their discretion in finding as frivolous the plaintiff’s claim that his procedural due process rights were violated when … More August 10, 2023, opinions
