• The following opinions designated for publication were released by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on July 13 - July 15, 2009:
  U.S. v. Castro-Guevarra (Jones, C.J., King, Owen, JJ.; opinion by Jones, C.J.) (appeal from S.D. Tex.) (criminal appeal - sentencing, “crime of violence”). Affirming defendant’s sentence for illegal reentry, which the district court based on the “crime of violence” enhancement due to a prior conviction for sexual assault of a child. The Fifth Circuit held that the defendant’s challenge to the “crime of violence” enhancement was foreclosed by its precedent in United States v. lvarado-Hernandez, 465 F.3d 188, 189 (5th Cir. 2006).
• Technology Lending Partners, LLC v. San Patricio County Community Action Agency (Jolly, Prado, Southwick, JJ.; opinion by Southwick, J.) (appeal from S.D. Tex.) (bankruptcy appeal - equitable mootness). Reversing the district court’s dismissal of appeal of bankruptcy court’s approval of settlement order on equitable mootness grounds, and remanding for further proceedings. The Fifth Circuit held that equitable mootness was unavailable where the “difficulty is not of the same nature or magnitude as the undoing of a complicated plan of reorganization.”
• Skinner v. Quarterman (Smith, Wiener, Owen, JJ.; opinion by Smith, J.) (appeal from N.D. Tex.) (habeas appeal - ineffective assistance of counsel). Affirming the district court’s denial of habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit held that the petitioner failed to show the prejudicial value of a blood spatter report that was omitted by his trial counsel; and that the trial counsel’s investigation regarding whether another man committed the murders was constitutionally adequate.
• Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc. (Barksdale, DeMoss, Stewart, JJ.; opinion by DeMoss, J.) (appeal from S.D. Tex.) (trademark protection). Reversing district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant on trademark claim, and district court’s judgment stripping the plaintiff’s mark EXTEND YOUR BEAUTY of trademark protection, and remanding for trial. The Fifth Circuit held that, for summary judgment purposes, the plaintiff’s mark was entitled to trademark protection as the determination of strength of the mark should be for the jury to decide; that there is sufficient threshold resemblance between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s marks to survive summary judgment; and that there was sufficient evidence of actual confusion to create a genuine issue of fact for a jury.

Additionally, the Court released 20 unpublished opinions on July 13 - 15, 2009.