Louisiana and Mississippi don't want to be known for prisons | Opinion

www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2018/07/criminal_justice_reform_1.html​

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Anchundia-Espinoza

Docket: 17-40584
Opinion Date: July 27, 2018
Judge: Edith Brown Clement
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess, with the intent to distribute, cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. 70503(a)(1), 70506(a) & (b) and 21 U.S.C. 960. The court followed its precedent in strictly construing the safety valve provision and holding that section 70503 was not specifically provided for under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f), but also was not an offense under section 960. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying defendant safety valve relief. The court further held that the district court did not clearly err by denying defendant a two-level sentencing reduction in his offense level for playing a minor role in the conspiracy.

Read Opinion

United States v. Villafranco-Elizondo

Docket: 17-30530
Opinion Date: July 27, 2018
Judge: Higginbotham
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop. The court held that the initial traffic stop was valid; and when the license check began, the officer had already developed reasonable suspicion that another crime was afoot. In this case, defendant's answers to some of the officer's questions were suspicious and there were modifications to the vehicle's trailer that could, and did, contain a hidden compartment containing contraband. Therefore, the totality of the circumstances led the officers, based on their training and experience, to conclude that the trailer contained a hidden compartment—a conclusion that, with all the other circumstances, supported probable cause.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Sosa

Docket: 17-40460
Opinion Date: July 25, 2018
Judge: Costa
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for bringing methamphetamine from Mexico into the United States. The court held that, although the government engaged in misconduct where the prosecution used drug profiling evidence and bolstered witnesses' credibility, defendant failed to meet the heavy burden of obtaining reversal for the errors because he did not object to them during trial. The court also held that there was no clear Confrontation Clause violation when an agent mentioned a tip implicating defendant. Finally, there was no cumulative error in this case.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Mance v. Sessions

Docket: 15-10311
Opinion Date: July 20, 2018
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc, withdrew the prior opinion, and substituted the following opinion. The court reversed the district court's decision to enjoin the enforcement of federal laws that generally prohibit the direct sale of a handgun by a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) to a person who is not a resident of the state in which the FFL is located. The court held that the laws did not violate the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court held that the in-state sales requirement was narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest in preventing circumvention of the handgun laws of various states; the in-state sales requirement was not unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs; the in-state sales requirement did not discriminate based on residency and was thus not subjected to any scrutiny under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause; and plaintiffs' equal protection claim failed because the in-state sales requirement did not favor or disfavor residents of any particular state.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Young v. Gutierrez

Docket: 18-70023
Opinion Date: July 17, 2018
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Christopher Young's requests to stay his execution. Young alleged that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles' decision not to recommend commutation to the Governor violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction in this case, but that Young failed to show that he was likely to succeed on the merits. The court explained that Young has not made a strong showing that if the court were to temporarily stay the execution and allow discovery, he would find evidence of discrimination.

Read Opinion

​Order barring Louisiana executions extended by 1 year

www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_06db857e-8947-11e8-a044-276713cdf8df.html

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Robles-Avalos

Dockets: 17-50633, 17-51037
Opinion Date: July 12, 2018
Judge: Jerry Edwin Smith
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to suppress after they pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The court held that the totality of the circumstances supported the denial of the motion to suppress where the border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle while on roving patrol of an area known to be used for smuggling; the vehicle at issue stood out from the typical truck or SUV used by local ranch vehicles; and the driver was going well below the posted speed limit, was tapping the brakes as though lost or searching for something along the road, pulled over at a known pickup point, and looked into the distance; and when the agent saw the vehicle a short time later, numerous additional passengers had appeared.

Read Opinion

Escobar v. Montee

Docket: 17-10467
Opinion Date: July 11, 2018
Judge: Jerry Edwin Smith
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging, among other things, that the initial bite from a police dog and the continued biting were excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed the initial bite claim on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion and denied summary judgment to the officer. The Fifth Circuit held that there was no Fourth Amendment violation because the totality of the circumstances and the Graham factors established that the officer's use of force was not objectively unreasonable. In this case, police were chasing plaintiff after he assaulted his wife, they were informed that they would have to kill plaintiff to get him, he had a knife, and was bitten by the dog until he was fully handcuffed by the police. Therefore, the court reversed the denial of qualified immunity to the officer. The court dismissed the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded.

Read Opinion

​
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Mitchell v. Mills

Docket: 17-40737
Opinion Date: July 10, 2018
Judge: E. Grady Jolly
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to defendants in an action brought by plaintiff, an African-American man, who claimed violation of his constitutional right to equal protection of the law. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendants, each mayors of the City of Naples at times when plaintiff was employed by the city, paid two specific white employees at a higher rate than he was paid. The court held that plaintiff failed to show a violation of his constitutional rights where there was no genuine dispute that plaintiff's job was not nearly identical to that of his proffered comparators. Therefore, the court remanded with instructions to enter judgment for defendants.

Read Opinion

​US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit OpinionsIn-N-Out Burger, Inc. v. NLRB

Docket: 17-60241
Opinion Date: July 6, 2018
Judge: James Earl Graves, Jr.
Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

The Fifth Circuit denied In-N-Out's petition for review of the Board's order finding that the company's rule prohibiting employees from wearing any type of pin or stickers on their uniforms was unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act. In this case, employees of the In-N-Out Burger in Austin wore buttons demonstrating solidarity with the "Fight for $15" campaign and managers responded by invoking the company rule. The court held that, by prohibiting employees from wearing any type of pin or stickers, In-N-Out's rule restricted its employees' section 7 rights and was therefore presumptively unlawful. The court upheld the Board's reasonable conclusion that In-N-Out failed to establish a special circumstances defense based on its public image interest. Finally, the court held that the company violated section 8(a)(1) by maintaining and enforcing the rule and by instructing an employee to remove his button, and when it responded to an employee's question about wearing the button by stating that the button was not part of the uniform. Accordingly, the court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement.

Read Opinion

​
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps

Docket: 18-30257
Opinion Date: July 6, 2018
Judge: Edith Hollan Jones
Areas of Law: Environmental Law

The Corps and Bayou Bridge appealed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction preventing Bayou Bridge from constructing a pipeline in part through the Atchafalaya Basin of southern Louisiana. The Fifth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that the district court misperceived the applicable regulations, and the Corps' analysis, properly understood, vindicated its decision that an environmental assessment sufficed under these circumstances. In this case, the environmental assessments concerning the permit did not exhibit the Supreme Court's criteria for an arbitrary and capricious decision. Furthermore, the district court abused its discretion by misapplying applicable legal principles and by inadvertently but critically overlooking the Louisiana Wetland Rapid Assessment Method. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings.

Read Opinion

Louisiana ranked No. 2 in South for economic development wins

​www.businessreport.com/article/louisiana-ranked-no-2-south-economic-development-wins

​
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Ledezma-Cepeda

Docket: 16-11731
Opinion Date: July 3, 2018
Judge: Jerry Edwin Smith
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendants Ledezma and Cepeda's convictions of interstate stalking and conspiracy to commit murder for hire. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cepeda's motions to sever where both defendants were charged together, for the very same crime, committed at the same time. The court also held that Ledezma's evidentiary challenges were both meritless and insufficiently developed.

Read Opinion

Eaglin v. Eunice Police Dept.

Docket: 2017-C-1875
Opinion Date: June 27, 2018
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law

On May 4, 2015, the Eunice Police Department arrested Marlon Eaglin, Paul Powell, and two others and charged them with second degree murder. Eaglin and Powell remained imprisoned until their release on August 21, 2015. On April 29, 2016, Eaglin filed this lawsuit against the Eunice Police Department, the City of Eunice, and Chief Randy Fontenot (collectively, “defendants”), alleging false arrest and false imprisonment. More than one year following the arrest, Eaglin amended his petition to add Powell as a party plaintiff. In response to the amended petition, defendants filed an exception of prescription, alleging Powell’s claims for false arrest and false imprisonment were prescribed. Defendants argued Powell’s claims prescribed on May 4, 2016, one year after the date of his May 4, 2015 arrest. Powell opposed the exception, arguing the amended petition adding his claim related back to Eaglin’s timely-filed petition. In addition, Powell argued his claim for false imprisonment did not commence until the date he was released from prison (August 21, 2015), thereby making his May 9, 2016 claim timely. After a hearing, the district court granted defendants’ exception of prescription and dismissed Powell’s claims with prejudice. The district court initially rejected. Powell’s relation back argument, finding there was no legal or family relationship which would allow the amended petition adding Powell’s claim to relate back to Eaglin’s original claim. The court further reasoned that prescription on Powell’s false imprisonment claim commenced to run on the date of his arrest, rather than his release from custody. After its review, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded the action was prescribed. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and reinstated the judgment of the district court.

Read Opinion

Maggio v. Parker

Docket: 2017-CC-1112
Opinion Date: June 27, 2018
Judge: Crichton
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Insurance Law, Personal Injury

Plaintiff Kerry Maggio was injured in an automobile accident when his vehicle was struck by a vehicle operated by James Parker, an employee of The Sandwich Kings, LLC d/b/a Jimmy Johns (“Sandwich Kings”). The vehicle operated by Parker was owned by Brenda Parker and insured by Louisiana Farm Bureau (“Farm Bureau”). Plaintiff filed a petition for damages naming as defendants: Parker; Sandwich Kings (contending that Parker was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident); Republic Vanguard (Sandwich King’s automobile insurer); and Metropolitan Property Casualty Insurance Company (plaintiff’s uninsured motorist insurer). Notably, plaintiff did not name Brenda Parker or Farm Bureau as defendants. Less than one month later, plaintiff entered into a “Final Release and Settlement of Claim” (“Release”) with Brenda Parker and Farm Bureau. In exchange for Farm Bureau’s $25,000 policy limits, plaintiff executed a release agreement. In this matter, which was at the summary judgment phase, the Louisiana Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the settlement which purported to release “all other persons, firms, or corporations who are or might be liable” applied to defendants who were not direct parties to the settlement. The Court found that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment, reversed the opinion of the court of appeal, and remanded for further proceedings.

Read Opinion

Louisiana v. Price

Docket: 2017-K-0520
Opinion Date: June 27, 2018
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant was indicted with five counts of second degree kidnapping and three counts of second degree murder. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari review in this case to determine whether guilty of simple kidnapping was a responsive verdict to a charge of second degree kidnapping. Finding that it is not enumerated among the legislatively authorized responsive verdicts in La. C.Cr.P. art. 814, and further that it is not a lesser and included offense in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 815, the Supreme Court set aside defendant’s convictions for simple kidnapping, and remanded to the trial court to enter a post-verdict judgment of acquittal on these charges.

Read Opinion

Louisiana v. Curley

Docket: 2016-KP-1708
Opinion Date: June 27, 2018
Judge: Crichton
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

This case presented a question of whether the defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel where trial counsel failed to investigate and present a cogent defense of “battered woman’s syndrome” (“BWS”), including failing to investigate the benefits of expert testimony concerning BWS. The Louisiana Supreme Court held, after review of the trial court record, that defendant was indeed deprived of effective assistance of counsel, given the documented evidence of repeated abuse the victim perpetrated upon the defendant before his death. The Court therefore reversed the court of appeal, vacated the defendant’s conviction and sentence, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Read Opinion