The following published opinions were released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 12, 2008:

• Wardlaw v. Cain (Garza, Dennis, Mills, JJ.; per curiam opinion) (appeal from M.D. La.). Affirming district court’s dismissal of petitioner’s claims as untimely under AEDPA. The Fifth Circuit held that Smith v. Ward, 209 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 2000), was abrogated by Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 554 U.S. 408 (2005), and that, applying Pace, the petitioner’s state petition for post-conviction relief was not properly filed and could not serve to toll AEDPA’s limitations period.
• Bibbs v. Early (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick, JJ.; opinion by Higginbotham, J.) (appeal from N.D. Tex.). Reversing summary judgment dismissing prisoner plaintiff’s § 1983 claim that prison guards had violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against his filing of grievances by directing a “purge fan” on his cell for four nights, which lowered the temperature in his cell to below freezing. The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims on the basis that his injuries (cold symptoms) were not severe enough to state a claim for retaliation, and that the plaintiff was not deterred from exercising his First Amendment rights. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff had at least raised a material issue of fact as to his retaliation claims; that the plaintiff had alleged sufficient evidence of causation to defeat summary judgment; and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the joinder of additional defendants in their individual capacities where the only claims against them was that they had the power to turn off the fan but did not do so.
• U.S. v. Vickers (Stewart, Owen, Southwick, JJ.; opinion by Southwick, J.) (appeal from N.D. Tex.). Affirming conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the handgun on the basis that the stop-and-frisk violated the Fourth Amendment, because the police officers had reasonable suspicion because the defendant matched the description of a suspect who had just committed a burglary in the area; that there was sufficient nexus between the defendant’s handgun possession and interstate commerce; and that the district court properly applied a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act where a prior Texas state conviction for delivery of a controlled substance qualified as a “serious drug offense.”
• In the Matter of Yorkshire LLC (Garza, Dennis, Mills, JJ.; per curiam opinion) (appeal from S.D. Tex.). Affirming the bankruptcy court’s sanctioning of petitioners for filing of two bankruptcy petitions in bad faith.
• In the Matter of United Operating, LLC (Jones, C.J., Wiener, Clement, JJ.; opinion by Jones, C.J.) (appeal from W.D. Tex.). Affirming bankruptcy court’s summary judgment against Dynasty’s post-confirmation attempt to sue the Appellees for their alleged mismanagement of its property during the reorganization. The Fifth Circuit held that Dynasty, a reorganized debtor, did not have standing to raise claims based on the appellees’ pre-confirmation management of the estate’s assets.
• Lewis v. Quarterman (Barksdale, Garza, Benavides, JJ.; opinion by Barksdale, J.) (appeal from E.D. Tex.). Vacating the district court’s refusal to consider an affidavit challenging the administration of an IQ test on the petitioner, offered in the federal district court in support of the petitioner’s Atkins claim, and remanding for further proceedings. The Fifth Circuit held that the affidavit supplemented, rather than fundamentally altering, the evidence presented to the state court, and therefore did not present any exhaustion issues.