Free US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit case summaries from Justia.
If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser. | | US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit July 10, 2020 |
|
|
Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s). | New on Verdict Legal Analysis and Commentary | A Modest Proposal: A Heartbeat Bill for Those Who Don’t Wear Masks | MARCI A. HAMILTON | | University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton draws upon a strategy used by anti-abortion advocates in suggesting a way to encourage (or coerce) more people into wearing masks to avoid the spread of COVID-19. Hamilton proposes requiring persons who opt not to wear a mask in public (1) to watch, on a large screen, an adult's beating heart for 30 seconds, and (2) to be read a statement about how their decision unreasonably endangers others. | Read More |
|
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions | Hawes v. Stephens | Docket: 19-40341 Opinion Date: July 9, 2020 Judge: James Earl Graves, Jr. Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law | Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Texas, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that various employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice violated federal law when they deducted a $100 medical co-payment from his inmate trust account. Plaintiff, who receives regular payments from the VA, claimed that this deduction violated 38 U.S.C. 5301(a) and 31 C.F.R. 212. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in regard to plaintiff's claims arising from the TDCJ defendants' purported violations of section 5301(a). In this case, plaintiff's VA benefits were commingled with transfers from his Altra account and with sizeable deposits by a private individual. Therefore, it is impossible to know whether the medical co-payment was charged against funds that originated from the Department of the Treasury and plaintiff cannot state a claim under Section 5301(a), which protects only payments of federal benefits. The court also affirmed the trial court's assessment of filing fees, and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on the due process claims. | | Bryant v. Gillem | Docket: 19-11284 Opinion Date: July 9, 2020 Judge: Leslie H. Southwick Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law | The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to a law enforcement officer in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. The officer accidentally discharged the firearm and shot Jonathan Bryant in the shoulder while arresting him after a high speed chase. The court held that the district court did not err in admitting opinion evidence that the shooting was accidental. The court also held that there is no fact dispute that the officer unintentionally kept his firearm in his hand as he sought to restrain Bryant. Therefore, plaintiff failed to show a violation of any Fourth Amendment rights. | | United States v. Stewart | Docket: 19-60624 Opinion Date: July 9, 2020 Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan Areas of Law: Criminal Law | In 2019, defendant moved for resentencing under section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA), which provided for retroactive application of sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FAIR), which in turn reduced the statutory penalties for crack cocaine offenses. Based on United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414, 415 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 285 (2019), the district court calculated defendant's post-FSA sentence using the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of his original conviction. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and held that the district court erred by constraining itself to the 2001 Sentencing Guidelines when calculating defendant's post-FSA sentencing range, thereby denying him the benefit of Amendment 750's change to the marijuana equivalency calculation for crack cocaine—a change compelled by FAIR. Because the only Guidelines change necessary for the relief defendant seeks is Amendment 750, which in relevant part was mandated by FAIR, the court need not and did not decide whether a district court faced with a resentencing motion invoking section 404(b) of the FSA must apply all retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, the court remanded for reconsideration. | | Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission | Docket: 19-60592 Opinion Date: July 9, 2020 Judge: Jacques Loeb Wiener, Jr. Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Health Law, Labor & Employment Law | The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the Commission's determination that Sanderson violated various regulations of the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The court held that the ALJ's determination that the compressor cutouts and the emergency stops are subject to the mechanical integrity program was not an abuse of discretion or otherwise contrary to law; the ALJ's determination that Sanderson failed to rebut the presumption of exposure to a hazard was not an abuse of discretion or otherwise contrary to law; and the Secretary bore his burden with respect to all elements of a violation regarding Items 5a and 5b. | |
|
About Justia Opinion Summaries | Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states. | Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas. | All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com. | You may freely redistribute this email in whole. | About Justia | Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers. |
|
|