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

The case involves a challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program by several states, led by Texas. DACA, established in 2012, allows certain undocumented immigrants who arrived as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and eligibility for work authorization. The plaintiffs argue that DACA is procedurally and substantively unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially ruled in 2021 that Texas had standing to challenge DACA and that the program was unlawful. The court vacated the program but stayed the vacatur for existing DACA recipients. In 2022, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and remanded the case, noting that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had issued a Final Rule to address procedural defects. On remand, the district court found the Final Rule substantively unlawful and vacated it, maintaining the stay for existing recipients.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Texas has standing to challenge DACA based on the financial burden imposed by the presence of DACA recipients. The court also found that the Final Rule is substantively unlawful as it conflicts with the INA. The court affirmed the district court's judgment but modified the remedial order to limit the injunction to Texas and to sever the forbearance provisions from the work authorization provisions of the Final Rule. The court also maintained the stay for existing DACA recipients pending further appeal. View "Texas v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2012, three people were shot and killed outside a nightclub in Houston, Texas. Feanyichi E. Uvukansi was identified by an eyewitness, Jeresano, who picked him out of a photo array. Uvukansi was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. At trial, Jeresano testified that he had no agreement with prosecutors regarding his testimony, but it was later revealed that he did have an agreement that could reduce his federal drug sentence in exchange for his testimony.Uvukansi did not raise the issue of false testimony on direct appeal but did so in state habeas proceedings. The state district court found that Jeresano's testimony was false but deemed it immaterial because the jury was aware of parts of the agreement through other testimony. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Uvukansi’s application without a written order. Uvukansi then filed a Section 2254 application in federal district court, which was dismissed on the grounds that the state court's decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the state district court applied the correct "reasonable likelihood" standard for materiality and did not impose a higher burden of proof on Uvukansi. The court also found that the state district court did not err in considering the false testimony's impact on Jeresano's credibility rather than the identification itself. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the state court's decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent and affirmed the dismissal of Uvukansi's Section 2254 application. View "Uvukansi v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

Nghia Le was involved in a methamphetamine distribution operation centered at a motorcycle shop rented by Ryan Negrotto. Le supplied methamphetamine to the shop, where drug transactions took place. Le was indicted on multiple charges, including using or maintaining a drug premises. Le admitted to using the shop for drug distribution but contested that he maintained it.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana applied a two-level offense enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), concluding that Le maintained the premises for drug distribution based on his admission in the factual basis supporting his guilty plea. Le objected, arguing that he did not have control over the shop, but the district court overruled his objection and sentenced him to 135 months for the methamphetamine charges, with additional sentences for other charges.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in applying the enhancement based solely on Le's ambiguous admission. The appellate court noted that the factual basis did not clearly establish that Le maintained the shop, as it primarily indicated his use of the premises. The court also found insufficient evidence that Le had a possessory interest or control over the shop. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated Le's sentence for the methamphetamine charges and remanded for resentencing, allowing the district court to reconsider the enhancement with more developed arguments. The court affirmed the rest of Le's conviction and sentence, rejecting his argument that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Le" on Justia Law

Abdul Fatani was involved in a fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan scheme during the COVID-19 pandemic. The scheme, led by Amir Aqeel, involved submitting false PPP loan applications with fabricated payroll information and supporting documents. Fatani, as a borrower, submitted a fraudulent application for his company, Route 786 USA, Inc., which had no employees or payroll. The loan was approved, and $511,250 was deposited into Route 786’s bank account. Fatani then wrote checks to co-conspirators and created fake payroll checks to make it appear that the funds were used for legitimate expenses.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas tried Fatani, and a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and engaging in a monetary transaction with criminally derived property. Fatani moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the district court denied. The court sentenced him to 36 months in prison for each count, to run concurrently, along with 3 years of supervised release and restitution of $511,250. Fatani appealed the conviction and sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support Fatani’s wire fraud conviction. The court held that the scheme to defraud was not complete until Aqeel, the mastermind, received his share of the proceeds, and the wire transfer in question was part of that scheme. The court also found that Fatani’s 36-month sentence was substantively reasonable, considering the mitigating factors presented. However, the court remanded the case for correction of a clerical error in the written judgment, which incorrectly listed aiding and abetting convictions. View "USA v. Fatani" on Justia Law

Joshua Stapleton was arrested for public intoxication by Officer Ernesto Lozano after failing a field sobriety test. During the booking process, Stapleton informed Officer Lozano that he was not feeling well and exhibited signs of intoxication. Despite this, he did not receive medical attention and was placed in a holding cell. Over the next few hours, Stapleton's condition deteriorated, and he eventually died from "combined drug toxicity." His family sued the officers and the police chief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to Stapleton's serious medical needs.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied the officers' and police chief's motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on qualified immunity. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged that the officers and chief were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm or that their conduct violated clearly established law. The district court's denial of the motion led to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege a deliberate-indifference claim against the officers. The court found that the symptoms exhibited by Stapleton were initially ambiguous and did not suggest a need for immediate medical attention. The court also determined that the plaintiffs failed to show that the officers acted with deliberate indifference, as required to overcome qualified immunity. Additionally, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not establish that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. View "Stapleton v. Lozano" on Justia Law

Jose Gomez Quiroz was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) for making a false statement while purchasing a firearm, as he allegedly denied being under indictment for a felony. He was also charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) for receiving a firearm while under indictment. A jury found him guilty on both counts. However, on the same day, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Quiroz then moved to dismiss the indictment, and the district court granted the motion, ruling that § 922(n) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Consequently, the court also dismissed the § 922(a)(6) charge, stating that the false statement was immaterial.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied Quiroz's motion to dismiss the indictment. After the jury's guilty verdict, the district court reconsidered its decision in light of the Bruen ruling and dismissed the indictment, declaring § 922(n) unconstitutional and the false statement under § 922(a)(6) immaterial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that § 922(n) is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. The court noted that historically, individuals indicted for serious crimes were often detained pretrial, which effectively disarmed them. The court held that § 922(n) imposes a comparable burden on the right to armed self-defense as historical pretrial detention practices. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case, reinstating the charges under both § 922(n) and § 922(a)(6). View "United States v. Quiroz" on Justia Law

Taegan Ray Contreras was charged with possessing a firearm as a felon, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statute violated the Second Amendment both facially and as applied to him. The district court denied the motion, and Contreras was convicted and sentenced. He appealed, raising the same constitutional challenges.The District Court for the Western District of Texas initially sentenced Contreras to 24 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release for being a user in possession of a firearm. While on supervised release, detectives found Contreras in possession of a firearm and marijuana. He was arrested and indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Contreras moved to dismiss the indictment, but the district court denied the motion, finding § 922(g)(1) constitutional. Contreras entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. He was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and forfeiture of the firearm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reiterated that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional and concluded that it is constitutional as applied to Contreras. The court found that the Second Amendment extends to convicted felons but upheld the statute, noting historical traditions of disarming felons and those under the influence of substances. The court held that § 922(g)(1) is consistent with historical regulations and principles, affirming Contreras' conviction. View "United States v. Contreras" on Justia Law

In January 2021, San Antonio police officers responded to two calls reporting a gunshot at an apartment complex. Officer Bonenberger arrived at the scene, spoke with a resident who heard the gunshot, and inspected a bullet hole in her apartment wall. Officers then encountered Jonte Turner, who lived in the adjacent apartment, and conducted a protective sweep of his apartment, finding firearms and magazines in plain view. Turner was arrested, and a search warrant was obtained, leading to the seizure of firearms, magazines, and marijuana.Turner moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the initial sweep and subsequent search violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motions, finding exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and protective sweep. Turner then pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that exigent circumstances and probable cause justified the warrantless entry and protective sweep of Turner’s apartment. The court found that the officers reasonably believed a firearm had been discharged from Turner’s apartment, posing an immediate safety risk. The protective sweep was limited in scope and duration, lasting only 99 seconds and confined to areas where a person could be hiding.The court also upheld the validity of the search warrant, finding that the affidavit supporting the warrant was not based on deliberately or recklessly false information. The good-faith exception applied, and the warrant was supported by probable cause. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Turner’s motions to suppress. View "United States v. Turner" on Justia Law

Stokley Austin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride and cocaine base, which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years at the time. He was sentenced accordingly. Later, the First Step Act reduced the mandatory minimum for his offense to 15 years but explicitly made this change non-retroactive.Austin filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) in January 2023, arguing that the non-retroactive change in the law was an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce his sentence. He reiterated this argument in a subsequent motion in May 2023. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied his motions in December 2023, concluding that Austin did not present an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction and did not consider the § 3553(a) factors. Austin then appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a non-retroactive change in the law is not an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(1). The court cited its precedent in United States v. Escajeda, which defined "extraordinary" and "compelling" reasons as those that are beyond common order and unique to the prisoner’s life. The court noted that a non-retroactive change in the law affects all prisoners sentenced under the old law equally and does not constitute an extraordinary or compelling reason. The court also addressed the Sentencing Guidelines, stating that the Sentencing Commission cannot override Congress's explicit decision to make the change non-retroactive. The court affirmed the district court’s order denying Austin’s motions. View "United States v. Austin" on Justia Law

Paul Curry, Jr. pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The presentence report (PSR) classified him as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), due to four prior Texas burglary convictions. Consequently, the district court sentenced him to 262 months of imprisonment, within the guidelines range of 210 to 262 months. Curry did not object to the PSR at the district court level.Curry appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing for the first time that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and that the district court erred in sentencing him as an armed career criminal. He contended that § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and violates the Second Amendment. Additionally, he argued that the district court should have submitted the question of whether his prior crimes occurred on separate occasions to a jury, and that it erred by relying solely on the PSR for the ACCA enhancement.The Fifth Circuit reviewed Curry's constitutional challenges for plain error, as they were not raised in the district court. The court found that Curry's arguments regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) were foreclosed by precedent. The court also held that Curry's facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment failed, as the statute was not unconstitutional in all its applications.Regarding the ACCA enhancement, the Fifth Circuit determined that the district court clearly erred by not submitting the separate-occasions inquiry to a jury, as required by the Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v. United States. However, the court concluded that Curry failed to demonstrate that this error affected his substantial rights, given the substantial gaps in time and different victims involved in his prior convictions. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Curry" on Justia Law