Case Name: Randy Benavides BALDERAS, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. ATASCOSA COUNTY TEXAS; Atascosa County Sheriffs Department; Tommy Williams, Sheriff, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff for Atascosa County, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-01
Citations: 114 F. App'x 155
Docket Number: No. 04-50197
Parties: Randy Benavides BALDERAS, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. ATASCOSA COUNTY TEXAS; Atascosa County Sheriffs Department; Tommy Williams, Sheriff, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff for Atascosa County, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 155–156

Head Matter:
Randy Benavides BALDERAS, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. ATASCOSA COUNTY TEXAS; Atascosa County Sheriffs Department; Tommy Williams, Sheriff, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff for Atascosa County, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.
No. 04-50197.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 1, 2004.
Gregory L. Reed, Bemis, Roach & Reed, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee-CrossAppellant.
Tom Joseph, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The district court's conclusions that the employment of plaintiff Randy Balderas was terminated by defendant Sheriff Tommy Williams and that Balderas's obligation to perform service in a uniformed service was a motivating factor in that termination are not clearly erroneous. Further, the district court did not err in finding that Balderas adequately mitigated damages. Finally, the district court did not err in concluding that the defendants failure to comply with the provisions of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq., was not willful. Although the defendants took the tack that Balderas was not terminated, the record reflects that reasons in addition to his service in a uniformed service entered into the decision to terminate Balderas, and the district court could properly take those reasons into consideration when deciding whether the defendants acted willfully. The defendants other arguments on appeal are meritless.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.