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

Law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at a residence in Starkville, Mississippi, after an officer obtained the warrant through an affidavit detailing three controlled drug purchases involving a confidential informant. The affidavit described the procedures followed during the buys, including continuous surveillance of the informant and searches for contraband before and after each transaction. The search resulted in the seizure of drugs, firearms, money, and cellphones, and the resident was arrested. During a subsequent police interview, the resident was read his Miranda rights and signed a form acknowledging this, but the waiver portion of the form was not read aloud or explained.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted the defendant’s motion to suppress both the physical evidence from the search and the statements made during the interview. The district court found the supporting affidavit for the search warrant to be “bare bones,” lacking sufficient detail or corroboration, and concluded that the officer’s reliance on the warrant was not objectively reasonable. The court further found that the defendant’s signature on the Miranda form did not amount to a voluntary waiver of his rights, as the waiver section was not explained and the officer’s conduct was considered deceptive.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because the affidavit was not “wholly conclusory” and contained sufficient factual detail to justify an officer’s reasonable reliance on the warrant. Thus, the suppression of the physical evidence was reversed. Regarding the statements, the appellate court agreed that the express waiver was involuntary but remanded for the district court to determine whether an implied waiver occurred under the totality of the circumstances. The panel retained jurisdiction pending the district court’s further findings. View "USA v. Weaver" on Justia Law

Following two fatal airplane crashes involving Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in 2018 and 2019, which resulted in significant loss of life, the Department of Justice investigated Boeing for misleading the Federal Aviation Administration about changes to flight control systems. The Department initially entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with Boeing, requiring the company to pay a substantial fine and undertake remedial measures. After Boeing was alleged to have breached the DPA, the Department negotiated a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in 2025, again requiring compliance and penalties. Family members of crash victims challenged both the DPA and NPA, asserting violations of their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA).The families first moved in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas to set aside the DPA, arguing they were denied timely notice and the right to confer as crime victims. The district court found the Department had not acted in bad faith but had committed a legal error in initially failing to recognize the families as crime victims. The court concluded, however, that it lacked authority to review or alter the terms of the DPA. When the Department later moved to dismiss the charges based on the NPA, the families objected, but the district court granted the motion, finding the Department had provided sufficient reasons and had not acted with bad faith.The families petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for writs of mandamus. The Fifth Circuit held that the challenge to the DPA was moot because it was no longer in effect after Boeing’s breach. As to the NPA, the court found the Department had satisfied the CVRA’s requirements to confer with and treat the families fairly. The court also ruled it lacked jurisdiction under the CVRA to conduct a substantive review of the district court’s dismissal of charges. The petitions for writ of mandamus were denied. View "In re Ryan" on Justia Law

Law enforcement in New Orleans began investigating a suspected methamphetamine dealer in 2020, leading them to Marshall Grace through surveillance methods such as phone records and tracking devices. Officers stopped Grace’s vehicle after observing traffic violations, detected the smell of marijuana, and subsequently searched his vehicle, finding approximately 441 grams of methamphetamine. Grace was arrested and provided a written statement admitting ownership of the drugs and detailing his ongoing involvement in distributing methamphetamine to others, including regular transactions over a two-year period. Electronic evidence from his phones corroborated his admissions and established communication with other dealers.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana presided over Grace’s trial. During jury selection, the government used peremptory strikes to exclude two of five black potential jurors, including one named Edward Davis. Grace challenged the exclusion of Davis under Batson v. Kentucky, arguing it was racially motivated. The district court questioned Davis and ultimately found the government’s reason—Davis having seven sons, one of whom had criminal justice involvement—to be race-neutral and denied Grace’s Batson challenge. The trial concluded with the jury finding Grace guilty on all counts, and the court imposed the statutory minimum sentence. Grace appealed, contesting both the sufficiency of the evidence for his conspiracy conviction and the denial of his Batson challenge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It held there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction, given Grace’s admissions, corroborating testimony, and the quantity of drugs involved. The appellate court also found no clear error in the district court’s denial of the Batson challenge, ruling that Grace failed to show purposeful discrimination by the prosecution. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. View "USA v. Grace" on Justia Law

An 18-year-old high school senior from Texas was indicted by a federal grand jury for transmitting threats in interstate commerce, based on statements he made while using the online gaming platform Roblox. The statements, made in a virtual “Church” experience, referenced possessing firearms, preparing munitions, and intentions to commit violence at a Christian event. Other Roblox users, located in Pennsylvania and Nevada, reported these statements to the FBI, believing them to be serious threats rather than mere role-play or trolling. The government alleged the defendant's remarks corresponded to a real concert scheduled in Austin and supported its case with evidence from the defendant’s internet history and statements captured by a keylogger.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed the indictment before trial, concluding no reasonable juror could find that the defendant’s statements constituted “true threats” outside the protection of the First Amendment. The court found the context—a role-playing video game environment filled with extreme and offensive avatars—undermined the seriousness of the statements, and excluded evidence of the defendant’s conduct outside Roblox as irrelevant. The district court released the defendant without conditions, later imposing some conditions after a government request.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the question of whether the statements were “true threats” is a factual issue that should ordinarily be decided by a jury at trial, not by the judge on a pretrial motion. The court found that disputed facts and contextual uncertainties required a trial on the merits, and that the district court erred by resolving these issues prematurely. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the indictment and remanded for further proceedings. The appeal regarding the defendant’s release was dismissed as moot. View "United States v. Burger" on Justia Law

Arturo Mendoza created and uploaded fourteen images of morphed child pornography using Adobe Photoshop and cloud storage services. The images depicted adult sexual activity with the faces of two minor girls, ages twelve and six, photoshopped onto adult women’s bodies. Mendoza was indicted and pleaded guilty to one count of transporting child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1), (b)(1). At sentencing, the presentence report recommended certain financial conditions related to restitution and a location-monitoring condition for supervised release.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas adopted the presentence report and sentenced Mendoza to 120 months’ imprisonment, an above-Guidelines sentence, followed by ten years of supervised release. The district court left restitution open for ninety days but never entered an order for restitution, as no hearing was requested or held. The written judgment included special conditions: a location-monitoring requirement (with unclear duration and a home-detention component), and financial-disclosure and credit-approval conditions. Mendoza appealed, challenging these supervised release conditions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred by imposing a home-detention component in the written judgment when only standalone location monitoring was pronounced orally, and by failing to specify the duration of the location-monitoring condition, violating due process. Additionally, the appellate court held that the financial-disclosure and credit-approval conditions were imposed in error because restitution was never ordered and the record did not support these restrictions. The Fifth Circuit vacated all three challenged conditions and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion, specifically for correction of the location-monitoring condition and for further proceedings regarding the financial conditions. View "United States v. Mendoza" on Justia Law

Police in Gautier, Mississippi, used an automatic license plate reader (LPR) system to identify a vehicle associated with Elijah Porter, who was wanted on an outstanding warrant for aggravated assault. Officer Hoggard received an LPR alert, confirmed the vehicle’s connection to Porter through a computer check, and conducted a traffic stop. During the stop, Hoggard detained Porter and, while interacting with him, observed the barrel and slide of a firearm, as well as a silver automatic conversion switch, protruding from under the driver’s seat. The officer later retrieved the firearm—a Glock pistol equipped with a machinegun conversion switch—during an inventory search of the vehicle.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Porter’s motions to suppress both the LPR-derived vehicle location data and the firearm, ruling that use of the LPR data did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, and that the plain view and inevitable discovery doctrines applied to the firearm. The court also rejected Porter’s argument that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which prohibits possession of a machinegun, was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Porter waived a jury trial and was found guilty in a bench trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. It held that use of the LPR system to identify Porter’s vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements on public roads or in license plate information, and the LPR data was not as comprehensive as cell-site location data. The court further held that the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, the firearm was lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine, and Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Porter’s Second Amendment challenge to § 922(o). The conviction was affirmed. View "United States v. Porter" on Justia Law

The defendant, employed as a daycare worker, took and distributed a sexually explicit photograph of an infant in her care. She pleaded guilty to one count of production and attempted production of child pornography under a plea agreement that included a waiver of her right to appeal, except in certain circumstances. At sentencing, the government advocated for the statutory maximum sentence and, in doing so, referenced the defendant’s sex as making her conduct more shocking and suggested that a lengthy sentence would prevent her from having children in the future. The district court ultimately imposed the statutory maximum sentence but did not mention the defendant’s sex as a reason for the sentence.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas accepted the guilty plea and sentenced the defendant to 360 months in prison, 10 years of supervised release, and restitution. The defendant did not object to the prosecutor’s comments regarding her sex at the sentencing hearing. She appealed, arguing that the government’s statements violated her Fifth Amendment right to equal protection and that the appeal waiver in her plea agreement did not bar her appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and applied the plain-error standard, as the defendant had not objected to the statements in the district court. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not rely on the prosecutor’s references to the defendant’s sex when imposing sentence. Because the defendant could not show that the government’s statements affected her substantial rights or that a structural error had occurred, the Fifth Circuit held that there was no reversible error. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

In this case, a witness in Laredo, Texas, reported hearing multiple gunshots fired from a black Cadillac SUV with a missing right rear taillight. Police responded, gathered shell casings, and located a gray Cadillac SRX matching the description, which had been previously stopped by police several days earlier with Jesus Eloy Garcia as one of the passengers. Based on the witness’s account, investigative findings, and past police encounters, law enforcement issued a “be-on-the-lookout” (BOLO) alert identifying the vehicle, its distinguishing features, and possible occupants. Later that day, officers located the Cadillac with three occupants, including Garcia, and conducted an investigatory stop. During the stop, Garcia was questioned, and bodycam footage was recorded.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Garcia’s motion to suppress the bodycam evidence, ruling that the investigatory stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. Garcia subsequently pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm but reserved his right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion. He argued on appeal that the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion and that the BOLO lacked the necessary specificity, so the evidence derived from the stop should be excluded.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the investigatory stop was supported by reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances. The court found that the BOLO contained sufficient detail, was based on multiple sources, and provided an adequate basis for the stop. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, rejecting Garcia’s arguments and upholding the denial of the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The defendant pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after a felony conviction. His Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended two discretionary conditions of supervised release: that he report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) upon release and, if allowed to return to the United States, report to probation within 72 hours, and that he seek proper work authorization from ICE before working. Neither the defendant nor the government objected to these conditions before or during sentencing.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas conducted the sentencing. At the hearing, the court confirmed that both parties had reviewed the PSR and that no objections had been filed. The court specifically asked defense counsel if she had reviewed with the defendant the fact that no objections were made, and counsel confirmed this. The court then orally adopted the PSR and its appendix, which included the supervised-release conditions, and imposed the sentence. The written judgment reflected these conditions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The defendant argued that the district court failed to adequately pronounce the conditions and did not properly verify, as required by United States v. Diggles and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A), that he had reviewed the PSR with counsel. The appellate court found that the district court’s oral adoption of the PSR satisfied Diggles and that the record showed the defendant had ample opportunity to review the PSR with counsel. The court also determined that the verification requirement of Rule 32 was met and that there was no plain error. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Villafana-Mondragon" on Justia Law

The defendant entered a bank in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and gave a cashier a note demanding money and threatening harm to everyone present. Believing he was armed, the cashier complied, handing over approximately $20,000. The defendant was later arrested and pled guilty to bank robbery under federal law. In the presentence report, the probation officer recommended a career-offender sentencing enhancement based on two prior Louisiana convictions: one for armed robbery and another for attempted armed robbery.At sentencing, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana agreed with the presentence report's assessment and found that the defendant qualified as a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1(a). As a result, the defendant’s offense level and criminal history category were increased, resulting in a recommended guideline range of 151 to 188 months. The district court sentenced the defendant to 151 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The defendant objected, arguing that Louisiana armed robbery does not categorically qualify as a “crime of violence” for purposes of the Guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s determination de novo. The appellate court concluded that Louisiana’s armed robbery statute requires the intentional use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force, and not merely reckless or negligent conduct. The court found that the defendant failed to show any realistic probability that Louisiana would apply its statute to unintentional acts. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit held that Louisiana armed robbery constitutes a “crime of violence” under the force clause of the Sentencing Guidelines and affirmed the district court’s sentence. View "USA v. Lanaute" on Justia Law