UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramon Terrell DANIELS; Jecarlos Montrae Carter; Tenisha Deshea Carter; Antonio Demetrious Furlow; Gransihi Deon Mims, also known as Granshi; Auburn Thomas, also known as Big, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 12-30413
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 5, 2013.
496
Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
IV.
Before we conclude, we note that the SPEECH Act also contains a “jurisdictional considerations” provision, which requires “the party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment” to show that “the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the foreign court comported with the due process requirements that are imposed on domestic courts by the Constitution of the United States.”
Handshoe asserts that Trout Point also failed to satisfy this provision because the Nova Scotia Court‘s exercise of personal jurisdiction over him did not comport with our nation‘s due process requirements. He makes a strong argument that Nova Scotia was not the “focal point” of the statements that preceded the First Amended Statement of Claim. Cf. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788-90, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984). But we, like the district court, need not resolve whether Handshoe had the requisite minimum contacts with Nova Scotia at the time that Trout Point filed suit, as Trout Point‘s failure to satisfy the First Amendment considerations provision of the SPEECH Act is fatal to its claim.
V.
For the above-stated reasons, Trout Point failed to satisfy its burden to show that either (1) Canadian law offers as much free speech protection as the United States Constitution and Mississippi state law, or (2) a Mississippi court presented with the same facts and circumstances would have found Handshoe liable for defamation. Accordingly, we hold that the Nova Scotia Judgment is unrecognizable and unenforceable. We AFFIRM.
Josette Louise Cassiere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Shreveport, LA, Allison Duncan Bushnell, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Patricia Ann Gilley, Gilley & Gilley, Attorneys at Law, Shreveport, LA, Stephen H. Shapiro, Jefferson, LA, G. Warren Thornell, Shreveport, LA, Douglas Lee Harville, Harville Law Firm, L.L.C., Shreveport, LA, Billy James Guin, Jr., Billy J. Guin, Jr., L.L.C., Shreveport, LA, Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defend
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
In this Petition for Panel Rehearing, Defendants JeCarlos Montrae Carter, Tenisha Deshea Carter, Antonio Demetrious Furlow, Gransihi Deon Mims, and Auburn Thomas argue that the sentences on their substantive counts should be vacated and remanded for resentencing because those sentences are intertwined with their now-vacated sentences on the conspiracy count.1 In other words, they argue that in addition to being resentenced on the conspiracy count, they are entitled to be resentenced on their substantive counts as well. While arguing that resentencing on the substantive counts is not required, the Government does not oppose vacating the sentences on the substantive counts and agrees that defendants should have their offense levels recalculated because, using grouping principles, their Guidelines range calculations were driven by the conspiracy‘s now-vacated 5 kilogram finding.
Accordingly, we VACATE the sentences of all defendants and REMAND the case for resentencing consistent with this Order. The Petition for Panel Rehearing is GRANTED to this extent and this extent only. The Petition is otherwise denied.