The following published opinions were released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 19, 2008:

• U.S. v. Duhon (Reavley, Garza, Benavides, JJ.; opinion by Benavides, J.) (appeal from W.D. La.) (on remand from U.S. Supreme Court). Affirming downward variance for sentence of sixty months’ probation on conviction on one count of possession of child pornography. After originally vacating the sentence and remanding, the Fifth Circuit held that, in light of Gall v. United States, 128 U.S. 596 (2007), the sentence was not reversible error because there was no indication that the district court’s sentence resulted from any error in application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
• U.S. v. Bonin (Smith, Wiener, Haynes, JJ.; per curiam opinion) (appeal from W.D. La.). Vacating judgment committing defendant to custody of the attorney general, and remanding. Defendant was arrested for making threats to George Strait; after the district court deemed the defendant incompetent to stand trial, a doctor found him to be a continuing and long-term threat to the safety of Mr. Strait due to the his mental condition, but the facility found him competent to stand trial and released him. The statutorily required certificate of dangerousness was never issued. The defendant then sent threatening letters to the federal magistrate judge; defendant was again arrested and again found to be incompetent to stand trial, that his release would create a substantial risk of harm to others, and that sufficient arrangements for state custody for care of the defendant were not available, and the court ordered him committed to the custody of the attorney general. Again, however, the statutorily required certificate of dangerousness was not issued. The Fifth Circuit therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for purposes of temporarily committing the defendant to federal custody where he may be evaluated for issuance of the certificate.
• In the Matter of: N A Flash Foundation, Inc. (Prado, Elrod, Haynes, JJ.; opinion by Prado, J.) (appeal from W.D. Tex.). Affirming district court’s decision to refuse to avoid three pre-petition transfers of funds as preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b). The Fifth Circuit held that “the creditor . . . would have received the same amount in a hypothetical Chapter 7 proceeding as a result of Texas construction trust fund law as it did in the allegedly preferential transfers.” Slip op. at 1.