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

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for ten counts of sexual exploitation of a child/production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a). The court joined its sister circuits in holding that 18 U.S.C. 3283 is the statute of limitations applicable to defendant's sexual exploitation of a child/production of child pornography charges under section 2251(a); because defendant's minor victims had not attained the age of 25 at the time of the indictment, defendant's indictment was timely; and defendant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the statute of limitations as a defense. The court also concluded that defendant has not shown that there is insufficient evidence that the section 2251(a) interstate commerce nexus requirement was satisfied. Finally, defendant's 600 month term of imprisonment is substantively and procedurally reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed in all respects. View "United States v. Diehl" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The district court applied a sixteen-level enhancement to defendant's offense level for a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1. 2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on a prior conviction of stalking in violation of Texas Penal Code 42.072. The court held that defendant's conviction under the Texas stalking statute, as narrowed by the indictment, was not for a crime of violence under section 2L1.2. Consequently, the district court erred in imposing a sixteen-level enhancement. However, the application of the enhancement was harmless where the court is persuaded that the district court would have sentenced defendant to sixty months in prison based on the district court's lengthy recitation of reasons for imposing the sentence. Because the district court both disclaimed reliance on defendant's uncharged conduct and justified the sentence it imposed with permissible factors, the court concluded that there is no reasonable probability that, but for the error, it would have selected a lesser sentence. Therefore, the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621-634. Plaintiff alleged discrimination and retaliation under the Act, but defendant never answered or defended the suit. After the district court entered a default judgment against defendant, defendant filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. The court concluded that evidence adduced at a default judgment "prove-up" hearing cannot cure a deficient complaint. In this case, plaintiff's complaint contained very few factual allegations, but his testimony at the damages hearing provided evidence on the elements of his claim that were absent from his pleadings. Accordingly, the court vacated the entry of default judgment and remanded. View "Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assoc, Inc." on Justia Law