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

Plaintiff is an immigration attorney whose work often requires international travel. Upon his return from one such trip, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) diverted him to secondary screening after his surname appeared in connection with an investigation involving an arms dealer. DHS seized Plaintiff’s phone, decrypted it, screened the files for privilege, searched the remaining files, and then returned the phone to Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued DHS for declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed most of Plaintiff’s claims, reasoning that he lacks standing to seek declaratory relief related solely to past events. Next, while the court held that Plaintiff does have standing to seek an injunction requiring DHS to delete the data that it had seized, the court also held that Malik’s constitutional theories have no merit.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that DHS found the cell phone on Plaintiff’s “person” because it was part of the “baggage” that he was carrying with him into the United States. The search easily falls within the “plenary authority” that Congress has granted to the Executive branch. Accordingly, the court held that Plaintiff’s statutory argument therefore fails. Next, the court reasoned that the apparent connection between Plaintiff and “an international arms dealer with known ties to the Dallas area” was plenty to create reasonable suspicion—even if Plaintiff is correct that the connection appears dubious in hindsight. View "Malik v. DHS" on Justia Law

Defendant’s sentence was enhanced by enhancement provisions in the Armed Career Criminal Act. Powell appeals, arguing that following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Taylor, a conviction for Texas robbery-by-threat is no longer a predicate offense under that act. Defendant argued that Garrett cannot stand post-Taylor.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the elements cause. Taylor thus expressly addresses offenses that criminalize attempts that may be undertaken without a use or threat of force. The court explained that in other words, Taylor does not reach the crime at issue here and cannot be said to clearly overturn Garrett. Thus, Taylor does not undermine or contravene Garrett’s conclusion that Texas robbery-by-threat constitutes a violent felony. View "USA v. Powell" on Justia Law

San Benito police officer Hector Lopez approached Plaintiff while Plaintiff was standing in the front yard of his property. Lopez pushed open the gate into Plaintiff’s yard. Plaintiff told Lopez he needed a warrant and pushed back. Within seconds, the parties physically struggled, with the fifty-year-old, disabled Plaintiff brought to the ground. Plaintiff was taken into custody and, after receiving medical attention for his injuries, was charged with several offenses. All were dismissed. He now seeks recompense from Defendants Lopez and the City of San Benito for false arrest and excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants.   The Fifth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff had raised genuine issues of material fact as to his claim for false arrest against Lopez. The court reversed and remanded concerning the false arrest claim. The court otherwise affirmed. The court explained that because the hot pursuit exception does not apply (and because Lopez has not identified any other applicable exception to the warrant requirement), Plaintiff has raised genuine issues of fact as to whether Lopez had the authority to enter his property to arrest him for disorderly conduct. Further, the court wrote that its conclusion that Lopez lacked authority to make a warrantless entry onto Plaintiff’s property applies equal force to Lopez’s argument that he could have entered the property to arrest Plaintiff or failed to identify. Moreover, a rational factfinder could determine that Lopez arrested Plaintiff before Plaintiff applied any resistance. View "Sauceda v. City of San Benito, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possessing child pornography. The district court sentenced him to 168 months in prison and ordered him to pay his victims $46,000 in restitution. On appeal, Defendant argued that he was not competent to enter the plea and challenged the court's restitution order.The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Regarding competency, the court relied on Defendant's admission that he only began to exhibit competency concerns during the PSR interview. There is no authority to find that erratic statements made in a PSR interview can somehow retroactively undermine Defendant's competency to plead guilty. Further, the district court did not commit reversible error in failing to hold a competency hearing sua sponte.In terms of Defendant's restitution argument, the court held that he failed "to show that there is a reasonable probability that such error resulted in his accountability for damages he did not cause or that the district court would have imposed a lower restitution amount but for any error." View "USA v. Teijeiro" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a 1983 claim, arguing that he was held in administrative segregation for 300 days over his 30-day disciplinary sentence without additional due process, such as new disciplinary hearings or periodic review of his custody status. The magistrate judge reviewed Petitioner's suit under 28 USC 1915(e) and 1915A and issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Petitioner's federal claims be dismissed with prejudice as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The district court reviewed and adopted the magistrate judge’s report, dismissing Petitioner's 1983 suit with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that the district court failed to apply the appropriate, multi-faceted legal test considering the conditions and length of confinement, and thus, dismissing the Petition was an abuse of discretion. View "Carmouche v. Hooper" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to the production of child pornography. On appeal, he challenged the district court’s application of a sentence enhancement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2251(e) based on his prior conviction for fondling a child, also referred to as lustful touching of a child.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence. The court concluded that the Mississippi statute relates to “abusive sexual contact involving a minor or ward,” as defined under section 2251(e) because the statute proscribes conduct that: (1) involves a child; (2) is sexual in nature; (3) is abusive; and (4) involves physical contact. The Mississippi statute only criminalizes conduct involving a child under the age of 18, so the first element is met. Moreover, because the statute also proscribes conduct involving “handling, touching or rubbing,” it meets the generic definitions of “abuse” and “contact” as well. Accordingly, the court held that there is no ambiguity as to the enhancements’ application; the rule of lenity is inapplicable. View "USA v. Northington" on Justia Law

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3) bars an individual from possessing a firearm if he is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance. Patrick Daniels is one such “unlawful user”—he admitted to smoking marihuana multiple days per month. But the government presented no evidence that he was intoxicated at the time of arrest, nor did it identify when he last had used marihuana. Still, based on his confession to regular usage, a jury convicted Defendant of violating Section 922(g)(3). The question is whether Defendant’s conviction violates his right to bear arms. The answer depends on whether Section 922(g)(3) is consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”   The Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment of conviction and render a dismissal of the indictment. The court explained that the nation’s history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage. Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users. Thus, the court held that as applied to Defendant, then, Section 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment. View "USA v. Daniels" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is a former Texas state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Defendant alleged in his 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action that the director of his former state prison’s faith-based dorm program conspired with a prison chaplain to retaliate against him for filing a complaint under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). He challenged the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. The court explained that the purpose of the rule laid out in Heck was to stop civil tort actions for damages where the plaintiff would be required “to prove the unlawfulness of his . . . confinement.” Here, Defendant believes he is owed money damages because he was not released after his early 2021 parole hearing due to Defendants alleged retaliatory actions. The court wrote that granting such relief would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement after that hearing for reaching the wrong determination. Consequently, Heck renders Defendant’s claims frivolous. View "Collins v. Dallas Ldrshp Fdn" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of enticement of a minor, travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, and transfer of obscene material to a minor. A total offense level of 41 and a criminal history category of I yielded a guideline imprisonment range of 324 to 405 months. The district court adopted the Pre-Sentence Report and sentenced him to 405 months in prison, a life term of supervised release, a $300 special assessment ($100 for each count), and a $15,000 Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act special assessment ($5,000 for each count). Defendant appealed, raising multiple challenges to his sentence.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment as to Defendant’s conviction. However, the court vacated the district court’s judgment as to that special assessment. The court explained that Defendant does not identify any case law establishing that his conduct on two different days should constitute a single occasion of abuse or establishing that the prohibited sexual acts must continue for a certain period of time or occur on a certain number of occasions to constitute a pattern. Therefore, the court held that the commission of distinct sexual assaults constitutes “separate occasions,” whether on the same or different days, for purposes of Section 4B1.5(b)(1). View "USA v. Sadeek" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to three counts of possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). He raised various issues on appeal.   The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded. The court explained that the district court’s ambiguous sentence impacted the “outcome of the proceeding” in at least two ways. First, the Bureau of Prisons decided that the sentence was so ambiguous that it “could not be executed.” That obviously would never have happened save for the error. The court further explained that after it was made aware of the error, the district court attempted to impose a completely different sentence at the null-and-void July re-hearing. The court reasoned that rarely does it have such strong evidence “that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.” Moreover, the court explained that the district court has already expressed its willingness to change Defendant’s sentence once. The court, therefore, left it to the district court on remand to exercise its jurisdiction and discretion to impose any sentence at or below the statutory maximum. View "USA v. Willis" on Justia Law