The following published opinions were released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 15, 2008:

• U.S. v. Edelkind (Reavley, Smith, Dennis, JJ.; opinion by Dennis, J.). Affirming conviction of defendant for willful failure to pay child support for child in another state, holding (1) that criminal non-support is continuing conduct, such that the five-year statute of limitations does not expire five years from the triggering event of the statute — accrual of $10,000 of overdue support or two years of missed payments; (2) the district court did not commit clear error, for speedy trial act purposes, in finding that a continuance was warranted due to the complex nature of the proceedings; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the defendant’s proposed jury charge for “willfulness,” that the failure to pay support was not willful if the defendant had a good faith belief that he did not have to pay a portion of the support award; and (4) there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendant was not prevented from paying the support by circumstances beyond his control.
• Citibank Texas, N.A. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (Wiener, DeMoss, Prado, JJ.; opinion by Wiener, J.). Reversing district court’s grant of summary judgment to Citibank, and rendering take-nothing judgment. Citibank had sued Progressive, as issuer of Financial Institution Bond, claiming Progressive should cover loss sustained in prior state court action against Citibank by a depositor on a claim of unauthorized endorsement. On cross-motions for summary judgment, district court had granted summary judgment to Citibank. Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered, holding (1) Progressive is not collaterally estopped from contesting the determinations in the state court proceedings, because the optional nature of the defense obligation in the financial institution bond meant that, if choosing not to defend its insured in the underlying action, the insurer did not waive its defenses and Progressive could contest the finding of “unauthorized” endorsement in the second action; and (2) that the district court’s treatment of the “unauthorized endorsement” rider was overly expansive, impermissibly including within it an endorsement that merely exceeded the endorser’s authorization rather than one where the endorser had no authority of any kind.
• Lindquist v. City of Pasadena (Reavley, Benavides, Elrod, JJ.; opinion by Elrod, J.). Reversing district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims arising from city’s refusal to grant a license to operate a used car dealership, and remanding for further proceedings; holding (1) the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim that similarly situated license applicants were granted licenses upon appeal to the City Council was not subject to an ill will or animus standard, (2) the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ substantive Due Process claim as merely a restatement of the Equal Protection claim was proper, and (3) the district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ “unbridled discretion” claim.
• Anthony v. U.S. (Barksdale, Dennis, Southwick, JJ.; opinion by Southwick, J.). Affirming district court’s finding that a non-transferrable private annuity must be valued, for estate tax purposes, pursuant to tables set out in the Internal Revenue Code, holding that the case does not present an applicable exception to the valuation of relevant annuities according to the tables.
• U.S. v. Gracia (Wiener, Barksdale, Owen, JJ.; opinion by Wiener, J.). Reversing defendant’s conviction on drug-related charges, and remanding for new trial, holding that the prosecutor’s bolstering of witness testimony during rebuttal closing arguments constituted reversible plain error.