Court Opinion

ID: 9399994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 02:00:45.618859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:41.392477
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20532        Document: 00516777319             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/06/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                     June 6, 2023
                                      No. 22-20532
                                                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________
                                                                                          Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Michael D. King; Ascent Aviation Solution, L.L.C.,

                                             Defendants—Appellants.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:19-CV-1418
                     ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Appellants Michael King and his company Ascent Aviation Solutions
   LLC were convicted by a jury of violating the Federal Aviation Act by
   operating an unlicensed air charter service. On appeal, Appellants challenge
   the district court’s partial denial of their motion for summary judgment and
   denial of their Rule 59 motion for a new trial. The United States moved for

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20532      Document: 00516777319           Page: 2     Date Filed: 06/06/2023

                                     No. 22-20532

   summary affirmance of the district court’s orders based on Appellants’
   failure to preserve their objections to the district court’s orders.
          Appellants first challenge the district court’s partial denial of their
   motion for summary judgment. Yet Appellants forfeited this argument by
   failing to raise it before the district court. Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th
   393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021) (“A party forfeits an argument by failing to raise it in
   the first instance in the district court—thus raising it for the first time on
   appeal[.]”).
          Appellants also object to the sufficiency of the evidence the United
   States presented at trial. However, because Appellants filed neither a pre-
   verdict Rule 50(a) motion nor a post-verdict Rule 50(b) motion challenging
   the sufficiency of the evidence, they forfeited their right to do so on appeal.
   Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 405 (2006) (“[A]
   district court may only order a new trial on the basis of issues raised in a
   preverdict Rule 50(a) motion when ‘ruling on a renewed motion’ under Rule
   50(b).”); see also HTC Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 12 F.4th 476,
   488 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Absent [a Rule 50(b)] motion, . . . an appellate court is
   ‘powerless’ to review the sufficiency of the evidence after trial.”); accord
   Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 189 (2011)). Moreover,
          “[where] a motion for a new trial has been made on the ground
          of insufficient evidence to support the verdict . . . the failure by
          the losing party to move for a directed verdict as well still
          operates to foreclose consideration of the question of
          sufficiency on appeal, and the appellate court may inquire only
          whether the trial court abused its discretion in overruling the
          motion for a new trial.”
          Little v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 426 F.2d 509, 511 (5th Cir. 1970).
   Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’

                                           2
Case: 22-20532      Document: 00516777319           Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/06/2023

                                     No. 22-20532

   Rule 59 motion for a new trial as the record reflects the existence of evidence
   supporting the jury’s verdict.
          Because Appellants failed to properly raise their challenges to the
   partial denial of their motion for summary judgment or the sufficiency of the
   evidence presented at trial before the district court, they forfeited their right
   to do so on appeal. Accordingly, the United States’ motion for summary
   affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is
   AFFIRMED.

                                          3