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

Defendant was found guilty of conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine base, conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Defendant was sentenced to a total of 420 months' imprisonment. After he exhausted his remedies on direct appeal, Defendant filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective. The district court denied Defendant's motion. At issue before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was whether Defendant's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising him not to testify on his own behalf. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that because Defendant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced, he did not establish a constitution violation and was not entitled to section 2255 relief. View "United States v. Wines" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered these cases jointly because they raised a single issue: whether Defendants, who were convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, among other things, were entitled to be sentenced according to the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) when their illegal conduct preceded the FSA but their sentencing proceedings occurred post-enactment. The Fifth Circuit held that the penalties described by the FSA did not apply to federal criminal sentencing for illegal conduct that preceded the FSA's enactment, and therefore, the sentences imposed by the district courts in these cases were affirmed. However, after the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion in these consolidated cases, the Supreme Court decided Dorsey v. United States, which held, contrary to the Fifth Circuit's opinion, that the more lenient penalties of the FSA apply to offenders who committed an offense before the Act was passed but were sentenced after the Act was enacted. The Fifth Circuit, therefore, vacated and remanded these cases for resentencing consistent with the Court's holding in Dorsey. View "United States v. Tickle" on Justia Law

Appellants Walter Teel, Paul Minor and John Whitfield raised several appellate issues arising from their final amended judgments of convictions and sentences entered by the district court after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case for resentencing in United States v. Whitfield. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment on remand, holding (1) Appellants' argument that the jury instructions erroneously defined honest-services fraud were barred by the mandate rule; (2) Appellants' argument that the indictment was erroneous for failure to state an offense was also barred by the mandate rule; and (3) the district court did not err in sentencing Minor and Whitfield. View "United States v. Teel" on Justia Law

Defendant Adrian Alvarado appealed his 170-month prison sentence and life term of supervised relief following a guilty plea to the receipt of child pornography. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part, holding (1) the portion of the district court's order regarding Defendant's prison term was not in error, as it was both procedurally and substantively reasonable; but (2) the sentencing judge plainly erred by automatically imposing a lifetime term of supervised release without engaging in any analysis of the circumstances surrounding Defendant's crime, an error that affected Defendant's substantial rights. View "United States v. Alvarado" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant guilty of possessing crack cocaine with the intent to distribute it. On appeal, Defendant contended that reversible error occurred when portions of two 911 calls were admitted into evidence because the recordings contained testimonial hearsay that violated his Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the admission of the 911 recordings did not violate Defendant's right to confrontation because the 911 caller's statements did not constitute testimonial hearsay; (2) the 911 caller's statements were admissible as present sentence impression under Fed. R. Evid. 803(1). View "United States v. Polidore" on Justia Law

Defendant, a police investigator, was charged with participating in the cover-up of the Danzinger Bridge shootings in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Defendant was brought to trial in early 2012. Near the conclusion of his trial, the prosecutor violated two pre-trial rulings on motions in limine that prohibited her from mentioning the case involving the death of Raymond Robair, who died while in police custody. Defendant sought and was granted a mistrial. Defendant further moved to bar retrial on the basis of double jeopardy. The district court denied the motion. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that the district court clearly erred in finding that the prosecutor did not intend to cause a mistrial with her improper actions, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion to bar retrial. View "United States v. Dugue" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, conspiracy to embezzle funds from employee benefit plans, conspiracy to launder money, mail fraud, embezzlement from employee benefit plans, money laundering, and making a false statement to the Department of Labor. After losing on appeal, he petitioned for habeas relief and was denied. Defendant subsequently filed a new motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2241, arguing that the Supreme Court's GVR ("grant, vacate, remand") in Jackson v. United States constituted a retroactively applicable decision demonstrated he was convicted of a non-offense. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the GVR did not qualify as a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision. View "Kenemore v. Roy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a dual-status air reserve technician (ART) in the 301st maintenance group (301st MG). ARTs are full-time civilian employees who are also required to serve in the Air Force Reserve in the units for which they work as civilians. Plaintiff was the chief of training management of the 301st MG in his civilian capacity and a technical sergeant and chief of training of the 301st MG in his military capacity. Plaintiff alleged that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment at the 301st MG, which caused him to leave his civilian job with the unit and lose his reserve position. The district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary of the Air Force. The Fifth Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over all allegations with the exception of one incident for Defendant's failure to exhaust his Title VII administrative remedies and over the remaining claim by virtue of the Feres doctrine. Remanded with instructions to dismiss. View "Filer v. Donley" on Justia Law

Defendant Aaron Hernandez appealed his convictions and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting the theft of government money. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err when it determined without holding a Garcia hearing that defense counsel's prior representation of Defendant's brother would not present an actual conflict of interest at trial; but (2) vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that the district court committed plain error when it calculated Defendant's total adjusted offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. Remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant Donald Branham pleaded guilty to numerous counts of bank fraud and was sentenced to thirty months in prison and ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution. The district court issued a writ of garnishment to garnish specified accounts that belonged to Donald and his wife Charlotte. The Branhams moved to dissolve the writ of garnishment on the ground that Charlote's accounts were not community property. They also requested a hearing. The district court denied the Branhams' motions without a hearing. The Branhams appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without prejudice for want of appellate jurisdiction, holding that the order appealed from was not a final order. View "United States v. Branham" on Justia Law