US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
USA v. Rodriguez

Docket: 21-20270
Opinion Date: July 26, 2022
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Health Law, White Collar Crime

Defendant owned and operated a healthcare clinic. Along with another provider, Defendant engaged in a scheme to fraudulently bill Medicare for home health services that were not properly authorized, not medically necessary, and, in some cases, not provided. Insiders testified to Defendant's role in the conspiracy, indicating she knew the home healthcare agencies were paying marketers to recruit patients. Defendant also told an undercover FBI agent she could show him how to make money by recruiting patients. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to 300 months in federal prison.

Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence against her. However, the Fifth Circuit affirmed her conviction, finding that a rational jury could have concluded that Defendant knew about and willfully joined the conspiracy. Additionally, the court rejected Defendant's challenges to her sentence, finding that the district court did not commit a procedural error and that her sentence was not substantively unreasonable.

Read Opinion

USA v. Coulter

Docket: 20-10999
Opinion Date: July 18, 2022
Judge: Edith H. Jones
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

An officer performed a traffic stop on Defendant in the middle of the night. Having been given reason to suspect that Defendant who revealed an aggravated robbery conviction, had a gun, the officer handcuffed him and asked where it was. Defendant answered, and the officer’s partner arrived later to find a .40 caliber pistol and .37 ounces of marijuana in Defendant’s backpack between the front seats of the van he drove. Before Defendant divulged that information, the officer did not provide Miranda warnings.
 
A grand jury indicted Defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant then moved to “suppress all statements [he made] in response to the officer’s questioning once he was in handcuffs.” The district court granted the suppression motion. The government filed an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s judgment and the trial has been continued pending resolution of the appeal.
 
The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment. The court explained that the admissibility of Defendant’s unwarned statements, therefore, depends on whether he was “in custody” as contemplated by Miranda at the time he offered them.
 
Here, based on the totality of the circumstances a reasonable person in Defendant’s position would not have equated the restraint on his freedom of movement with formal arrest. But even if Defendant could have reasonably thought that he was in custody for Miranda purposes after being handcuffed, the environment in which the officer questioned him was not tantamount to a station house interrogation as contemplated by Miranda.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Beatriz Ball v. Barbagallo Company

Docket: 21-30029
Opinion Date: July 12, 2022
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Copyright

Beatriz Ball, LLC, is a Louisiana company doing business as Beatriz Ball and Beatriz Ball Collection. Barbagallo Company, LLC is a New Jersey company doing business as Pampa Bay. Plaintiff alleged that Pampa Bay has been marketing and distributing products that infringe on Beatriz Ball’s registered copyrights and its unregistered trade dress for its “Organic Pearl” line of tableware.
 
Plaintiff challenged the district court’s conclusions that (1) the company lacked standing under the Copyright Act because the plaintiff did not obtain a valid assignment of its claim, and (2) it failed to establish a protectable trade dress under the Lanham Act.
 
The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the district court erred in its standing determination and that certain errors in its analysis of the trade dress claim require reconsideration by the district court. The court explained that whether Beatriz Ball’s trade dress has acquired secondary meaning is considered a question of fact reviewed on appeal for clear error. Here, the record indicates that the district court clearly erred in analyzing three of the factors: volume of sales, the nature of the use of Organic Pearl trade dress in newspapers and magazines, and the defendant’s intent in copying the trade dress. Ultimately, a visual comparison of Pampa Bay’s products to the Organic Pearl line makes it difficult to deny that there was intent to copy. The designs are not just alike, they are indistinguishable in some cases. Thus, the sum of errors in the district court’s analysis of secondary meaning requires reconsideration of the evidence and overall re-weighing of the factors.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
USA v. Kelley

Docket: 20-30436
Opinion Date: July 8, 2022
Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). The jury instructions did not specify that the jury must find that Defendant knew he was a felon when he possessed a firearm. After Defendant’s conviction and sentencing, the Supreme Court decided in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), that knowledge of felony status is an essential element of that offense. The following year, Defendant filed a motion with the district court under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, arguing that because of Rehaif the court should vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Rehaif did not establish a new right that applies retroactively as required for such collateral actions.
 
The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded. The court considered whether in Rehaif the Supreme Court newly recognized a right and whether that right has been made retroactive to cases on collateral review. The court concluded that the Supreme Court did indeed recognize a new right—the defendant’s right to have the Government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of his felony status when he possessed a firearm.

Next, the court wrote, that rule applies retroactively. The Supreme Court has explained that “[n]ew substantive rules generally apply retroactively” to finalized convictions. Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 351 (2004). The court explained that remand is appropriate because the district court has not addressed procedural default or the merits of Defendant’s claim.

Read Opinion