Swear on the Stand

This legal dispute centers on a federal appeal regarding mortgage-backed securities and the authority of Ginnie Mae to extinguish a bankrupt lender's mortgage interests. When a reverse mortgage issuer defaulted, Ginnie Mae assumed control of the underlying loans, which effectively wiped out a third-party lender's security interest in unsecuritized mortgage balances known as tails. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Ginnie Mae acted fully within its statutory and contractual authority. Furthermore, the court held that the third party's tort claim was barred by sovereign immunity and that its arbitrary-and-capricious claim under the Administrative Procedure Act was forfeited due to an intentional omission from the original complaint.

A federal appeals court affirmed the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition filed by prisoner Dennis Michael Hogan, who sought First Step Act time credits for the period between his sentencing and his arrival at his designated Bureau of Prisons facility. Hogan argued that he was entitled to accrue these credits during his pre-transfer detention, contending that Bureau of Prisons regulations improperly delayed his eligibility. The majority concluded that Hogan's claim failed because he did not substantiate any actual participation in recidivism reduction programs, which is a mandatory statutory prerequisite for earning time credits. In contrast, the dissenting judge argued that the case should be remanded because the Bureau of Prisons prevented Hogan from accessing required programming before his facility transfer, creating genuine disputes of material fact that precluded summary judgment.

In Bill Word v. U.S. Department of Energy, appliance consumers appealed a lower court's dismissal of their lawsuit challenging federal energy and water-consumption rules for dishwashers and clothes washers. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals first determined that the plaintiffs possessed proper standing because regulatory market compression restricted their product choices and constituted a concrete injury. However, the appellate court ultimately affirmed the dismissal, ruling that federal law vests exclusive jurisdiction for such appliance standard challenges directly in the circuit courts rather than federal district courts. The court further rejected the appellants' alternative jurisdictional arguments, concluding that their claims did not qualify as valid ultra vires actions and that the statute's savings clause did not create a separate jurisdictional pathway in equity.

In a legal battle concerning a natural gas supply contract, MIECO, L.L.C. appealed a district court decision favoring producer Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. after Winter Storm Uri disrupted deliveries. Following an earlier appellate remand, the lower court conducted a bench trial and concluded that the severe weather constituted a force majeure event that legitimately prevented performance while finding that Pioneer acted with proper due diligence. MIECO challenged this outcome by arguing that the trial court ignored the previous mandate and mishandled expert testimony regarding industry standards. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected these challenges, ruling that the district court faithfully executed its instructions and did not abuse its discretion regarding evidentiary rulings. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of Pioneer.

Debbie Navejas filed a lawsuit as the representative of her deceased father, Armando Navejas, against Officer Steven Jaso and the City of El Paso following a tragic domestic-violence response where Armando was tased and subsequently died. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of both defendants. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's rulings, determining that Officer Jaso was shielded by qualified immunity because his single use of a taser against an actively resisting, erratic suspect did not violate any clearly established law. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish municipal liability against the City of El Paso because there was insufficient evidence of a pattern of similar constitutional violations demonstrating deliberate indifference. Finally, the appeals court rejected the plaintiff's request to remand the case for additional discovery, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding scheduling orders.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the federal sentence of David Daniel Koan, who was convicted of producing child pornography after serving nearly forty months in Texas state custody for a related sexual assault. During his federal sentencing, defense counsel requested a sentence adjustment to account for the time already served in state prison, but the district court mistakenly believed it lacked the legal authority to grant this relief and deferred the matter to the Bureau of Prisons. Although the government argued that the objection was forfeited and that the lower court had implicitly considered the guidelines, the appellate majority concluded that Koan had properly preserved his argument under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b). Consequently, the appellate court ruled that the sentencing judge improperly conflated judicial sentence adjustments with administrative time-credit rules. Because the lower court failed to recognize its discretionary power to reduce the term for related undischarged time, the panel vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, while a dissenting judge argued that the original sixty-year penalty reflected the judge's intent to impose the maximum lawful punishment.

In Frankfort v. Metropolis Technologies, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a lower court's dismissal of a class-action lawsuit filed by drivers Curtis Goodban and Todd Frankfort against parking technology company Metropolis Technologies. The plaintiffs claimed that Metropolis violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) through an alleged scheme of issuing exorbitant Violation Fines for unpaid parking charges. Although the district court wrongly based its dismissal on a statutory exception for debt originators without confirming that Metropolis collected debts for third parties, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal on alternative grounds. The appellate panel determined that Metropolis does not qualify as a debt collector because its primary business purpose is operating parking garages rather than collecting debts, and the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that Metropolis regularly collects debts on behalf of others. Finally, the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal with prejudice because the plaintiffs made only a basic, unsupported request for leave to amend without detailing how they would fix their pleading deficiencies.

In these consolidated appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed two related Texas products liability cases arising from a patient's tragic death following colon surgery involving a surgical stapler and staples. The plaintiffs, consisting of the decedent's widow and four children, initially sued certain corporate entities for breach of warranty and defective design, but failed to provide mandatory presuit notice to the proper defendant. After the first lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and a second state-court lawsuit was removed and subsequently dismissed on preclusion grounds, the plaintiffs challenged both district court judgments on appeal. Finding that the plaintiffs conceded their failure to meet statutory notice requirements and forfeited substantive challenges to the preclusion rulings, the appellate court ultimately affirmed the lower court judgments in their entirety.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling in an intellectual property dispute between Pittsburgh Logistics Systems and Glen Rose Transportation Management. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment that dismissed the plaintiff's trade secret and unjust enrichment claims following a jury verdict for the defense. Additionally, the panel upheld the denial of the plaintiff's post-trial motion to alter the judgment because the appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudicial evidentiary errors or lack of evidence supporting the jury. The court also dismissed a cross-appeal concerning unruled-upon litigation costs due to the absence of a final, reviewable order from the district court. Finally, a concurring opinion addressed the magistrate judge's improper ex parte meeting with a corporate representative, emphasizing that judges must endure public criticism and personal attacks without engaging in private defensive communications.

In United States v. Luis Andres Serna, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision denying the defendant a jury instruction regarding the age of his victim. Serna had argued that under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), the government was required to prove he knew the victim was a minor because he operated as a non-commercial producer of child pornography. However, the appellate court concluded that the statutory text contains no knowledge requirement and that the standard presumption of scienter does not apply to sex crimes against minors where the perpetrator personally confronts the victim. Furthermore, the court determined that the law applies equally to commercial and non-commercial producers due to historical amendments removing profit requirements from the statute. Consequently, the district court committed no error in rejecting the requested instruction, and Serna's conviction and sentence were upheld.