Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — appointed by Jimmy Carter
District Court, S.D. Texas — appointed by John F. Kennedy
United States v. Brigance
District Court, S.D. Texas · 1979-07-05 · cited 3×
This case involved two defendants indicted for conspiring to and smuggling psittacine birds into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 545. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing it failed to allege the extent of property subject to forfeiture as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(2). The court denied the motion and held that Rule 7(c)(2) does not apply to forfeitures under § 545. The ruling rested on the advisory committee notes to the rule, which limited it to specific criminal forfeiture statutes like RICO and drug laws, as well as distinctions in legislative history and the nature of the forfeiture at issue.
criminal lawprocedure
United States v. May May
District Court, S.D. Texas · 1979-03-16 · cited 6×
This criminal case involved multiple defendants charged with conspiracies to import and distribute marijuana from Colombia into the United States, using a mother-ship smuggling technique involving large vessels offloading cargo to smaller boats on the high seas. After a partial mistrial, five remaining defendants moved to suppress evidence seized during a Coast Guard boarding of their vessel and to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court denied both motions after a pretrial hearing, finding that the vessel's characteristics—such as its size, flag, crew, and location—matched known smuggling profiles and provided reasonable suspicion to board and verify nationality under the Convention on the High Seas. The marijuana was admissible because it was discovered in plain view by officers lawfully aboard the vessel.
criminal law
Bradford v. Edelstein
District Court, S.D. Texas · 1979-02-05 · cited 13×
This case is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiff Frank Bradford challenged the Public Utilities Board’s termination of his water and electricity service without prior notice after he submitted a bad check. The court issued a temporary restraining order requiring reconnection of service upon payment of amounts owed for actual usage and later considered stipulations of fact showing that the PUB had a written policy of immediate termination without notice for bad checks, which was later revised to provide 24-hour notice. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, the court held that utility customers possess a protected property interest in continued service and that the prior no-notice policy violated due process. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the due-process claim, certified a class under Rule 23(b)(2), and scheduled further proceedings on damages and attorney’s fees.
civil rightsprocedure
Guerra v. Guajardo
District Court, S.D. Texas · 1978-10-10 · cited 4×
This case involved importers of powdered milk from Canada who operated from bonded warehouses and sought a preliminary injunction and declaratory relief to stop the U.S. Customs Service from disclosing export information to Mexican authorities under a 1976 Mutual Assistance Agreement between the two countries. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Constitution's commerce clause and treaty powers, due process, the Freedom of Information Act exemptions, Customs regulations, and the Trade Secrets Act. The court denied the request for injunctive relief and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, reasoning that the FOIA exemptions and related statutes did not prohibit the disclosures to a foreign government, the agreement was properly authorized, and the plaintiffs failed to meet the standards for injunctive relief.
business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure
United States v. Alvarez-Gonzalez
District Court, S.D. Texas · 1975-08-14
The case involved Enrique Alvarez-Gonzalez, charged with possessing approximately 152 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute after Border Patrol agents discovered it during a vehicle search at the La Gloria fixed checkpoint. The defendant waived a jury trial and contested the search's constitutionality via a motion to suppress, with the court delaying sentencing pending Supreme Court decisions on checkpoint searches. The court found the defendant guilty, ruling that the search was legal under United States v. Ortiz because probable cause developed during an initial lawful immigration inspection, and alternatively noting the checkpoint's possible status as the functional equivalent of the border. Sentencing was set for August 22, 1975.
criminal lawimmigrationcivil rights
Partida v. Castaneda
District Court, S.D. Texas · 1974-10-26 · cited 4×
In Partida v. Castaneda, the petitioner, after conviction for burglary in Hidalgo County, Texas, sought federal habeas corpus relief alleging that Mexican-Americans had been systematically underrepresented on the grand jury that indicted him, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection guarantees. The district court addressed whether the claim was waived by the petitioner's failure to raise it before trial and whether he had established a prima facie case of long-standing racial discrimination in grand jury selection. The court denied the petition, holding that the petitioner had not proven purposeful discrimination; although statistical evidence showed a 40% disparity between the Mexican-American share of the county population (79%) and their representation on grand juries (39%), the court found that the county's Mexican-American majority in population, voters, officials, judges, and jury commissioners made intentional self-discrimination unlikely, and that the jury commissioners' selections from higher socioeconomic groups reflected ordinary preferences rather than racial animus. The court further noted that the Texas grand jury selection system, though outdated, had been upheld against constitutional challenges and that demographic factors in this jurisdiction distinguished it from other cases finding discrimination.
criminal lawcivil rights