US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Weaver v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

Docket: 18-10517
Opinion Date: September 20, 2019
Judge: Don R. Willett
Areas of Law: Contracts

This contract-interpretation case arose when Diane Weaver's then-husband Larry Hickey suffered a diving incident and the couple received a structured settlement. Years after the couple divorced, Larry passed away. At issue was whether the settlement agreements gave Larry the right to replace Weaver as beneficiary of an annuity. As a preliminary matter, the court held that it had preliminary jurisdiction because the parties were diverse throughout the action. On the merits, the court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants based on the settlement agreements because these documents, read as a cohesive, contextual, harmonious whole, granted Larry the unilateral right to change the beneficiary. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Adekeye v. Davis

Docket: 17-20040
Opinion Date: September 13, 2019
Judge: Don R. Willett
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of attempted aggravated robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court rejected petitioner's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to conduct a sufficient pretrial investigation. In this case, petitioner failed to show prejudice under Strickland v. Washington or other clearly established federal law, because he did not allege what a sufficient investigation would have uncovered or how it would have changed his trial outcome.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Torres-Magana

Docket: 18-50056
Opinion Date: September 10, 2019
Judge: Jerry E. Smith
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by applying a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(15)(A), because defendant used fear, impulse, friendship, affection, or some combination of thereof to involve his stepson in the controlled substance offense. In this case, the district court did not clearly err in determining that the stepson was not paid for his role in the offense, and the stepson did not have knowledge of the structure and sheer scope of the drug organization.

Read Opinion

United States v. Reece

Docket: 17-11078
Opinion Date: September 9, 2019
Judge: Jerry E. Smith
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his federal habeas corpus petition seeking vacatur of his three conspiracy-predicated 18 U.S.C. 924(c) convictions on the ground that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), rendered section 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague. The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing, because, while petitioner's appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held that section 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutional. In this case, petitioner's section 924(c) conviction allowed for an enhanced sentence on his other section 924(c) offenses. The court left it to the district court's discretion to determine the appropriate sentence.

Read Opinion

Thomas v. Bryant

Docket: 19-60133
Opinion Date: September 3, 2019
Judge: W. Eugene Davis
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Election Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the legislative boundaries for Mississippi State Senate District 22, arguing that the district, as drawn in 2012, diluted African-American voting strength. After determining that it had jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action and that a single district judge had the authority to decide the case, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the State's laches defense. On the merits, the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the evidence established a section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 violation under the standards set forth in Thornburg v. Gingles. In this case, the district court did not err in determining that plaintiffs' section 2 challenge to a majority-minority, single-member district was legally cognizable; the district court did not clearly err in determining that plaintiffs met their burden of proving the three Gingles preconditions; the district court did not clearly err in its ultimate finding of vote dilution; and the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs were entitled to section 2 relief was fully supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. Finally, the court dismissed the State's appeal of the district court's judgment granting injunctive relief as moot, because no matter the resolution of the State's appeal, the court-ordered plan will never become operative.

Read Opinion