The following published opinions were released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on July 22, 2008:

• In re: Repine (Reavley, Smith, Garza, JJ.; opinion by Garza, J.) (appeal from S.D. Tex.). Vacating in part and affirming in part district court’s affirmance of bankruptcy court decision awarding actual and punitive damages to debtor against appellant Young. Young represented the debtor’s ex-wife in child support enforcement proceedings. Debtor was incarcerated for failure to pay child support, and additionally was imprisoned on civil contempt charges for failure to pay Young’s fees incurred in representing the debtor’s ex-wife. While in prison, the debtor filed his bankruptcy petition. Subsequently, despite the debtor’s ex-wife’s wishes that the debtor be released from jail, Young opposed the release and continued to try to enforce the pre-petition award of attorney’s fees in spite of the bankruptcy court’s automatic stay. After finally securing his release from jail, the debtor brought a claim against Young, and the bankruptcy court awarded $65,000 in damages against Young, including $5,000 in punitive damages. The district court affirmed. The Fifth Circuit held that Young’s collection actions did violate the automatic stay; that the district court did not clearly err in finding that there was a causal connection between Young’s refusal to agree to the release from jail and the damages suffered by the debtor; that there was no clear error in the finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the award of lost wages due to the incarceration; that Young’s actions were egregious conduct such that the award of punitive damages was not clearly erroneous; that the award of the damages component for emotional damages was not supported by specific information, as opposed to generalized assertions; and that the award of attorney’s fees to the debtor in prosecuting his action against Young was not improper.
• U.S. v. Saltzman (Smith, DeMoss, Stewart, JJ.; opinion by Stewart, J.) (appeal from E.D. La.). Reversing district court’s dismissal of three counts of superseding indictment, and remanding. The defendant withdrew a guilty plea, and the government secured a superseding indictment. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss three counts of the superseding indictment, applying a presumption of vindictiveness. The Fifth Circuit held that the presumption of vindictiveness did not apply, and that the dismissal was not supported absent the presumption.
• Fratta v. Quarterman (King, Davis, Clement, JJ.; opinion by King, J.) (appeal from S.D. Tex.). Affirming grant of habeas relief by district court. The district court found two violations of the petitioner’s Confrontation Clause rights. The Fifth Circuit held that the petitioner’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated by the admission of statements made by one of the men who carried out the killing to his girlfriend.

The Court also released a revised opinion in U.S. v. Cepeda-Rios, which was originally released on June 4, 2008.