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

Docket: 17-10165
Opinion Date: October 28, 2019
Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Seven defendants appealed their conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Although defendants were not all members of the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, the conspiracy was connected to this group. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity of drugs attributable to Defendant Killough at sentencing. In this case, there was no information containing sufficient indicia of reliability to support the district court's calculation. Therefore, the court vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court affirmed on the remaining issues raised by defendants, including claims challenging the denial of requests for substitute counsel; the application of an obstruction of justice sentencing enhancement; denial of a motion to suppress evidence; the district court's decision allowing a witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; denial of requests for funds under the Criminal Justice Act; denial of motions for acquittal; limitations of cross-examination; and denial of cumulative error.

Clarkston v. White

Docket: 18-31099
Opinion Date: October 25, 2019
Judge: Jerry E. Smith
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Kingdom Builders and its CEO filed suit against defendant, the Superintendent of the Louisiana Department of Education, alleging that defendant caused the denial of Kingdom Builders' charter school application in retaliation for the CEO expressing her views on disciplinary practices—including corporal punishment—on a nationally televised show. The district court held that the CEO failed to state a valid claim for retaliation. The Fifth Circuit affirmed on a different ground, holding that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of his alleged violation, it was not clearly established that First Amendment liability could attach to a public official who did not possess final decisionmaking authority.

Read Opinion

Louisiana vs. Parker

Docket: 2019-K-00028
Opinion Date: October 22, 2019
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

After defendant Desmond Parker was found guilty of simple robbery and intimidating a witness, the State filed a habitual offender bill of information alleging that defendant was a fourth-felony offender. The district court adjudicated defendant as a third-felony offender after finding that the State failed to prove an out-of-state guilty plea was entered in compliance with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine if the lower courts correctly found that the State failed to carry its burden of proving a prior out-of-state guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and made with an express waiver of defendant’s rights in accordance with Boykin. Finding the State indeed failed to carry its burden, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal, which found the district court correctly rejected this predicate guilty plea and adjudicated defendant as a third, rather than as a fourth, felony offender.

Read Opinion

Louisiana vs. Lyles

Docket: 2019-KO-00203
Opinion Date: October 22, 2019
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 2016, a jury found defendant Henri Lyles guilty of an aggravated battery, committed in 2015. The State filed a habitual offender bill of information alleging two predicate offenses: a 1991 distribution of cocaine conviction, and a 2004 manslaughter conviction. In early 2017, the district court adjudicated defendant a third-felony offender and sentenced him to the life sentence mandated by La.R.S. 15:529.1(A)(3)(b) (effective August 15, 2010). The court of appeal vacated the habitual offender sentence and remanded for resentencing because of the trial court’s failure to vacate the underlying aggravated battery sentence. After remand, the district court resentenced defendant on to the same term of imprisonment under the same provision of law. Defendant appealed, contending the Habitual Offender law, as amended by 2017 La. Acts 282, should have been applied to him. Among other changes, the act reduced from ten to five years the time allowed (known as the cleansing period) between expiration of correctional supervision for one offense and commission of the next offense on the habitual offender ladder. Defendant’s probation for distribution of cocaine expired in 1996 and he did not commit manslaughter until 2003. Therefore, defendant contended he was a second-felony offender subject to a sentencing range of 3 1/3 to 20 years imprisonment under the amended law. Finding Act 282 applied, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal, vacated the habitual offender adjudication and sentence, and remanded with instructions to the district court for further proceedings.

Read Opinion

Russell v. Russell

Docket: 18-20643
Opinion Date: October 21, 2019
Judge: Jerry E. Smith
Areas of Law: Bankruptcy, Family Law

Ex-wife filed suit against her ex-husband, a Chapter 7 debtor, in bankruptcy court over a debt of $32,500 plus interest. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision reversing the bankruptcy court's ruling in favor of the ex-husband. The court held that the ex-husband's payment to the ex-wife's former attorney did not terminate his obligation to the ex-wife because the attorney was no longer authorized to transact on the ex-wife's behalf. In this case, the attorney did not have actual or apparent authority to collect on the ex-wife's behalf.

Read Opinion

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

Docket: 17-51143
Opinion Date: October 16, 2019
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Petitioner was granted a certificate of appealability (COA) to address whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant relief to petitioner on his claims for denial of the right to a speedy trial, on claims of violation of due process based on the suppression of evidence, and on the claim that he was entitled to substitute counsel. Petitioner had pleaded guilty to the offense of injury to a child and received a twenty-year sentence. The Fifth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over the appeal but did not reach the merits on the grounds that petitioner, on appeal, has waived any argument related to the issue upon which he was granted appellate review.

Read Opinion

Louisiana law opens door to HOV lanes

​landline.media/louisiana-law-opens-door-to-hov-lanes/

United States v. Dean

Docket: 18-50509
Opinion Date: October 10, 2019
Judge: Edith H. Jones
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a special search condition of supervised release, holding that the record supported the condition and there was no clear error adversely impacting defendant's substantial rights. In this case, not only did the district court expressly adopt the findings of the presentence report (PSR), which included defendant's extensive criminal history, but the condition was a mechanism for enforcing other conditions prohibiting defendant's possession of drugs or firearms by facilitating the detection of evidence of other supervised release violations. Furthermore, the reasonableness of the conditions was evident from the very background of defendant's appeal, which stemmed from a crime he committed while on parole.

Read Opinion

​Supreme Court agrees to decide Louisiana abortion case

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLNaNDvx7m4

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
McMillen v. New Caney Independent School District

Docket: 18-20420
Opinion Date: October 2, 2019
Judge: Costa
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law

Plaintiff and his parents filed suit against the school district, seeking damages under the Rehabilitation Act and 42 U.S.C. 1983 after plaintiff was expelled from high school. The Fifth Circuit explained that, because plaintiff did not exhaust the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's (IDEA) procedures, his suit asserting other federal claims must be dismissed if it seeks relief that is also available under the IDEA. In this case, both the substance and language of plaintiff's complaint reveal that he was challenging the denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that the IDEA promised him. The court held that plaintiff did not seek awards tied to the cost of providing him with an adequate education. Rather, he sought damages for injuries like emotional distress, and such traditional compensatory damages were not available under the IDEA. Therefore, the IDEA's exhaustion requirement applied to plaintiffs who seek damages for the denial of a FAPE. In this case, because plaintiff did not first seek relief through the IDEA administrative process, his lawsuit was properly dismissed.

Read Opinion