Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of illegally reentering the United States after deportation. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction based on the grounds that he was neither "found" nor "in" the United States as required by 8 U.S.C. 1326(a). The court concluded that the cases defendant cites stand for the proposition that an alien is not "found" if he voluntarily presents himself to immigration authorities when seeking entry into the United States, but they do not reach the situation of an individual, like defendant, seeking to exit the country. The court declined to extend the "voluntary disclosure" rule to defendant's circumstances. The court need not decide whether the official restraint doctrine applies in this circuit because even if it does, defendant does not fall within the "official restraint" parameters. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rojas" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence after being convicted of several counts of identity-theft-related crimes. Although defendant argued that there had been an Ex Post Facto Clause violation for the first time in her untimely filed reply brief, the court exercised its discretion to consider this argument because it is a question of law and because the misapplication of the guidelines in effect at the time of her sentencing caused a significant disparity between the sentence defendant received and the sentence she would have received had the guidelines in effect at the time of her offense been applied. The court found error in the district court's application of the 2012 sentencing guidelines and, because defendant's sentence is increased by 42-51 months, the court held that the misapplication of the six-level increase seriously affects defendant's substantial rights and offends the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Myers" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty for being unlawfully present in the United States following deportation. On appeal, defendant challenged his 30-month sentence. The court affirmed the district court's imposition of a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) where defendant's 2006 Indiana conviction for sexual misconduct with a minor constituted sexual abuse of a minor under section 2L1.2. View "United States v. Cortez-Cortez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine (Count 1), and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred by imposing the statutory mandatory minimum sentence for Count 1. Defendant was found guilty on a conspiracy charge in which the overall conspiracy involved a sufficient amount of drugs to trigger an increased mandatory minimum penalty under 21 U.S.C. 841 and 846; the Factual Basis and PSR only attributed a lesser quantity of drugs to defendant, which would not be sufficient to trigger the statutory mandatory minimum sentence; and the district court expressly adopted the facts set out in the PSR. The court concluded that the district court plainly erred in imposing the mandatory minimum sentence and, given the disparity between the otherwise applicable Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months and the erroneously applied 120-month statutory mandatory minimum the district court applied, the error affected defendant's substantial rights and failure to to correct the error would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Randall" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being an alien found unlawfully in the United States after having been previously deported and subsequently appealed the district court's application of a sixteen-level enhancement for a prior conviction for a crime of violence (COV). The court rejected, in light of United States v. Pascacio-Rodriguez, defendant's argument that his Maryland conspiracy conviction cannot support a COV enhancement; the court need not address whether robbery under Maryland law is an enumerated offense under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iii) because the object of defendant's conspiracy, robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon, fits squarely within the catch-all provision; and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon is plainly within the Guidelines definition of a COV. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's application of the enhancement. View "United States v. Segovia" on Justia Law

Petitioner, born in Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal, contending that removal is improper because he derived citizenship from his father under former 8 U.S.C. 1432(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court declined to decide whether the Second Circuit or the BIA has the correct interpretation of section 1432(a)(5) because petitioner does not qualify for derivative citizenship under either interpretation. The court also rejected petitioner's claim that section 1432(a)(5) does not require an individual to be lawfully present in the country. Because petitioner is not entitled to derivative citizenship under section 1432, the court also denied his motion to stay and transfer his case. The court declined to decide whether the proper interpretation of section 1432 is that of the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits or the Second Circuit because petitioner's claim fails under either approach. View "Gonzalez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride and cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The court held that a defendant originally sentenced under the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. 2D1.1, but resentenced in a section 3582 proceeding using the career offender provisions in U.S.S.G. 4B1.1, cannot bring another section 3582 motion to reduce his sentence based on an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that further lowers the guidelines range for crack cocaine in the section 2D1.1 drug quantity table. The purpose of section 3582 is to allow the reduction of a sentence where the amended guidelines would result in a lower guidelines range applicable to the defendant. Thus, section 3582 does not apply when the career offender offense provisions controlled in the original sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Banks" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Deputy Arnold and Sheriff Graves, alleging violations of federal and state law after Arnold fatally shot their father while responding to a 911 call that the father was threatening to commit suicide. Plaintiffs also filed suit against ReliaStar to recover $179,000 they allege ReliaStar owes them under the father's accidental death policy. The district court granted Arnold and Grave's motions for summary judgment and granted ReliaStar's motion for summary judgment. The court held that Arnold did not violate the father's Fourth Amendment rights when he entered the father's home without a warrant because he had an objectively reasonable belief that the father would imminently seriously injure himself, and the district court did not err in granting Arnold's motion for summary judgment on the warrantless entry claim because Arnold is entitled to qualified immunity; Arnold is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate the father's constitutional right to be free from excessive force; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Arnold on the assault and battery claims, the false imprisonment claims, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; the district court correctly granted Graves's motion for summary judgment; and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for ReliaStar where the record was replete with factual evidence that ReliaStar relied on in determining that the father's death was not accidental, demonstrating that ReliaStar could have reached its determination without resorting to the conflict of interest at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Rice, et al. v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant is the non-debtor spouse of debtor. Appellant claimed a homestead exemption in property held jointly with debtor that is subject to a forced sale in debtor's bankruptcy proceedings, contending that the sale is a Fifth Amendment taking and that she is entitled to just compensation. The court held, however, that the forced sale of the property by operation of section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 363, is not a taking of appellant's homestead where any potential property interest was acquired after the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), Pub. L. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23-217. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that there was no unconstitutional taking. View "Thaw v. Moser" on Justia Law

Respondents appealed the district court's grant of habeas relief to petitioner. Petitioner argued that his sentence was not enhanced, and that the denial of a hearing violated state law and therefore deprived him of a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Respondents argued that the discretionary nature of Mississippi's parole regime means that there is no liberty interest that gives rise to a federal constitutional issue. The court reversed the judgment of the district court and dismissed the petition, concluding that, any relief petitioner is entitled to under Mississippi law must be obtained in the courts of that state. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a parole hearing as a matter of Mississippi law, the discretionary nature of the state's parole system ends the federal due process inquiry. View "Wansley v. MS Dept. of Corrections, et al." on Justia Law