The following additional published opinions were released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 8, 2008:

• U.S. v. Harper (King, DeMoss, Owen, JJ.; opinion by Owen, J.) (opinion substituted for opinion originally released January 8, 2008, upon granting petition for panel rehearing). Affirming convictions and sentences for drug possession, conspiracy, and weapons possession offenses. The Fifth Circuit held that the arresting officers’ testimony about what one non-testifying co-defendant said at the time of arrest did not violate the Confrontation Clause rights of the other co-defendant; that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding as repetitive arrest records for a cooperating witness’s committed crimes as to which he testified at trial; that the district court did abuse its discretion in excluding records related to the cooperating witness’s misdemeanor arrest subsequent to his controlled drug buy in this case, as the arrest was not duplicative of the other crimes as to which the cooperating witness testified; that the district court did abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the cooperating witness’s two convictions for theft-by-check; that the errors regarding the cooperating witness were harmless, since the excluded evidence went to impugn the witness’s credibility and the jury had other evidence before it of the witness’s criminal history; that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to ask the jurors questions about their ability to understand and follow instructions specifically about the conspiracy instructions, rather than just generally asking the jurors about their ability to follow the law as instructed; and that the district court’s sentencing determination was reasonable.
• Kadlec Medical Center v. Lakeview Anesthesia Associates (Reavley, Benavides, Elrod, JJ.; opinion by Reavley, J.). Reversing in part, vacating in part, and remanding in part. A doctor who was a shareholder in an anesthesiologists’ group practice was discovered to have been engaged in the unauthorized use of Demerol, which impaired his ability to perform his job; the practice dismissed him from the practice, but two of the shareholders later wrote referral letters for his use in securing future employment, representing that he was a good anesthesiologist and neglecting to disclose the drug use. After receiving a specific inquiry regarding the doctor, the hospital at which the anesthesiology group practiced sent a form response that the doctor had worked there during a specified date range, without disclosing the drug use history. The doctor was then hired by a new hospital, but again fell into Demerol use, resulting in the near-death of a patient. The patient sued the subsequent employer; after the subsequent employer settled with the patient, it sued the doctor’s former practice group and the former employer hospital to recover its settlement and litigation costs from the lawsuit brought by the patient; the district court entered summary judgments against the practice group and the hospital. The Fifth Circuit held that, after choosing to write referral letters, the practice group had a duty to not make affirmative misrepresentations in those letters; and that, while the practice group’s referral letters were affirmatively misleading, the hospital’s form response to the subsequent employer’s inquiry was not. The Fifth Circuit also held that neither of the defendants had an affirmative duty to disclose the drug use in the referral letters or the inquiry response, but just to not make affirmative misrepresentations. The Fifth Circuit therefore reversed the judgment against the former employer hospital. The Fifth Circuit held that the suit was not really an impermissible contribution or indemnity action in disguise, but that it is truly a suit by the subsequent employer for breach of a duty owed to it by the practice group to not include affirmative misrepresentations in a volunteered referral letter; that the collateral source rule was properly applied to exclude evidence of the subsequent employer’s insurer’s reinsurance benefits; that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to consider evidence of the attorneys’ fees incurred by the subsequent employer in defending the underlying lawsuit; and that the damages amount against the former practice group had to be vacated to allow for a possible reapportionment of damages.
• Bolvito v. Mukasey (Reavley, Smith, Dennis, JJ.; opinion by Dennis, J.). Denying petition for review of decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Fifth Circuit held that the petitioners’ due process rights were not violated in the scheduling of their master calendar hearing, because they never requested a continuance or complained as to the scheduling; that the daughter of a permanent resident could not be grandfathered into her mother’s I-130 application date as her own status adjustment date; and that, because the daughter turned twenty-one prior to her mother’s visa application on the daughter’s behalf, the IJ did not err in using the visa application as the status adjustment date instead of the mother’s I-130 application date.