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

Charles Ray Lerma escaped from Dismas Charities, a residential reentry center, by jumping the facility’s exterior fence. He voluntarily returned the same day. Lerma was charged with one count of escape from custody under 18 U.S.C. § 751 and pleaded guilty. His presentence investigation report (PSR) classified his escape as from non-secure custody and applied a four-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(3) for not returning within ninety-six hours, resulting in a base offense level of seven.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed the PSR and, considering Lerma’s extensive criminal history and the nature of the offense, decided to depart upward from the Sentencing Guidelines’ recommendation. The court sentenced Lerma to the statutory maximum, citing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) such as the need to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter future criminal conduct, and protect the public. Lerma’s counsel objected, arguing that the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Lerma argued that the district court erred by not applying a seven-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(2) since he returned within ninety-six hours. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, holding that jumping a fence constitutes escape from secure custody, making Lerma ineligible for any reduction under § 2P1.1(b). The court also found that the district court adequately explained its reasoning for the upward variance and that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The Fifth Circuit affirmed Lerma’s sentence. View "USA v. Lerma" on Justia Law

Johnathan Avery pleaded guilty to coercing or enticing an individual to travel to engage in prostitution, violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a). Avery signed an acceptance of responsibility statement as part of his plea. His initial presentence report (PSR) incorrectly determined his base offense level to be 30, relying on a cross-reference that applies when the offense involves sexual abuse conduct. The PSR also assessed a four-level enhancement for conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Avery objected, arguing that his plea did not involve such conduct.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held two sentencing hearings. Initially, the judge agreed with the PSR’s recommendations, but after Avery’s counsel requested a hearing and threatened to withdraw the plea, the court sustained Avery’s objections. The court decided not to apply the enhancement or cross-reference for coercion and physical force. Instead, the court applied a different enhancement under § 2G1.1(b)(1) without informing Avery or his counsel beforehand. The court determined Avery’s offense level to be 15, resulting in a guideline range of 41 to 51 months, and sentenced him to 72 months imprisonment, a $100 mandatory special assessment, and a ten-year term of supervised release. Avery did not object at the time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Avery argued that the district court erred by not informing him of the new enhancement and failing to make the requisite findings of fraud or coercion. The Fifth Circuit found no plain error, noting that Avery had agreed with the enhanced guideline range and that the district court could rely on the PSR’s factual findings. The court affirmed Avery’s sentence. View "United States v. Avery" on Justia Law

Adrian Dantrell Wesley was convicted of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. At sentencing, he received a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining premises for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance. Wesley appealed the enhancement, arguing that there was no evidence he possessed or controlled the premises.The case originated when Fort Worth police received a tip about drug distribution at a residence on Griggs Avenue. A confidential informant purchased methamphetamine from Wesley at the residence. Subsequent police surveillance and searches revealed drugs, firearms, and other evidence linking Wesley to the premises. Wesley was indicted on multiple counts of possession with intent to distribute and firearm possession. He proceeded with a bench trial on stipulated facts for one count and was found guilty. The pre-sentence report included the premises enhancement, which Wesley contested, arguing lack of evidence of his control over the premises.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas overruled Wesley’s objection and applied the enhancement, finding that Wesley used the residence for drug distribution, had a key, and controlled access to the premises. Wesley appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the evidence supported the finding that Wesley maintained the premises for drug distribution. The court noted that Wesley’s repeated use of the residence for drug transactions, possession of a key, and control over access to the premises justified the enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(12). The court found no clear error in the district court’s determination and affirmed the application of the sentencing enhancement. View "United States v. Wesley" on Justia Law

Keith Todd Ashley, a licensed financial advisor, was charged and convicted on 17 counts of violating federal law, including mail and wire fraud, Hobbs Act robbery, and bank theft. He operated a Ponzi scheme and allegedly murdered one of his clients to steal funds from the client’s bank account and benefit from the client’s life insurance proceeds. The district court sentenced Ashley to 240 months’ imprisonment for each of 15 counts of wire and mail fraud and imposed life sentences for his convictions of Hobbs Act robbery and bank theft.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Ashley was found guilty on all counts presented. He filed motions for continuance and severance, which were denied by the district court. The jury found Ashley guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced him accordingly. Ashley then appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for most of his convictions, the reasonableness of his sentence, and the denial of his motions for continuance and severance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The government conceded that there was insufficient evidence to convict Ashley of five counts and that the life-sentence enhancement for his conviction of bank theft did not apply. The Fifth Circuit agreed, affirming some of Ashley’s convictions, vacating others, and remanding the case for resentencing and further proceedings. Specifically, the court affirmed Ashley’s convictions on Counts 1, 3, 14, and 19, vacated his convictions on Counts 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18, and remanded for resentencing. The court also addressed Ashley’s challenges to the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence and the cumulative error doctrine but found no reversible error in those respects. View "United States v. Ashley" on Justia Law

Betty Butler pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony. This charge stemmed from a DEA search warrant executed at her home, where agents found a firearm and a small amount of marijuana. Butler admitted to possessing the firearm. She was subsequently indicted and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, with the government alleging that she qualified for a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) due to her prior serious drug offenses.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi conducted a factual inquiry into Butler’s prior convictions and determined that she had at least three convictions for serious drug offenses committed on different occasions. This finding enhanced her sentence to a statutory minimum of 180 months in prison under the ACCA. Butler objected, arguing that a jury should determine whether her prior offenses occurred on different occasions, but the district court overruled her objections based on existing precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court acknowledged that the Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v. United States required a jury to resolve the ACCA’s “different occasions” inquiry unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the lack of a jury determination in Butler’s case was harmless error. The court reasoned that any rational jury would have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Butler committed her previous serious drug offenses on different occasions based on the entire record. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit affirmed Butler’s sentence and the district court’s final judgment. View "United States v. Butler" on Justia Law

Andre Louis Keller drove to a permanent immigration checkpoint where a Customs & Border Protection (CBP) canine alerted to his vehicle. Upon searching, agents found an alien unlawfully present in the United States concealed under luggage. Keller conditionally pleaded guilty and appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence found in the vehicle.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a hearing on Keller’s motion to suppress. Testimonies were provided by CBP Agent Jesse Sandoval, Matthew B. Devaney from CBP’s Canine Academy, and Andre Falco Jimenez, a private police dog trainer. The district court denied Keller’s motion, leading to his conditional guilty plea. Keller was sentenced to 20 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. He then appealed the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that stopping a vehicle for brief questioning at a permanent immigration checkpoint is not a Fourth Amendment search and does not require probable cause. The court found that the canine’s alert provided probable cause to search Keller’s vehicle. The court also concluded that the canine’s actions did not constitute an unlawful search and that the district court did not err in its ruling. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Keller’s motion to suppress. View "United States v. Keller" on Justia Law

Enrique Morales was sentenced to 188 months in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to operate an illegal money-transmitting business and conspiracy to launder funds. His presentence report calculated a total offense level of 41, including a four-level enhancement for his role as an organizer/leader of criminal activity. Morales had no criminal history points, resulting in a guideline range of 324 to 405 months, which was adjusted to 300 months due to statutory maximums. The government recommended a downward departure for his substantial assistance, and the district court sentenced him to 188 months in total.Morales filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the new zero-point-offender provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which allows for a decrease in offense level for certain offenders. The district court denied the motion, stating that Morales was ineligible for the reduction because he had received an aggravating-role adjustment under USSG § 3B1.1(a).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that to qualify for the zero-point-offender reduction under USSG § 4C1.1, a defendant must meet all criteria, including not having received an adjustment under § 3B1.1 and not being engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise. Since Morales received a § 3B1.1 adjustment, he was ineligible for the reduction. The court concluded that either receiving a § 3B1.1 adjustment or engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise is sufficient to disqualify a defendant from the reduction. Thus, the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Morales" on Justia Law

Sekhar Rao was involved in a scheme to defraud TRICARE, a federal health benefit plan, by ordering medically unnecessary toxicology and DNA cancer screening tests. These tests were billed to TRICARE through a shell company, ADAR Group, LLC, which set up fraudulent testing sites. Rao, a physician, was hired to sign off on these tests without reviewing patient medical information or meeting the patients. He was paid per test ordered. The scheme involved using a signature stamp of Rao’s signature to sign requisition forms, which Rao allegedly knew about and consented to.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Rao was acquitted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud but was convicted of two counts of substantive health care fraud related to specific fraudulent claims submitted to TRICARE. The district court sentenced him to 48 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, and calculated the loss amount under the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on the intended loss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Rao raised three issues on appeal: the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions, the exclusion of testimony regarding statements made to him by the scheme’s leader about legal vetting, and the calculation of the loss amount under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Fifth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court’s decisions. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Rao caused the submission of the fraudulent claims and that he knew about and authorized the use of his signature stamp. The court also held that the district court did not plainly err in excluding the testimony about legal vetting and did not err in calculating the intended loss amount. The Fifth Circuit affirmed Rao’s convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Rao" on Justia Law

Joseph Anthony Borino, as part of a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony (wire fraud) on July 8, 2021. He was sentenced to one year and one day of imprisonment on November 1, 2022. On March 30, 2023, the district court ordered restitution of $21,223,036.37 under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), to be paid jointly and severally with Denis Joachim, Borino’s employer and co-conspirator.The district court proceedings began with the indictment of Denis and Donna Joachim in August 2018, followed by Borino’s separate indictment in November 2019. Borino was charged with conspiracy to defraud the IRS, making false statements, and wire fraud. He later pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony in June 2021. The district court adopted the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSR) which attributed the entire loss of $25,543,340.78 to Borino, and scheduled a separate restitution hearing. At the restitution hearing, the court calculated the restitution amount based on the fees paid by the victims during the period of Borino’s offense, minus the claims paid by TTFG.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Borino’s appeal, where he challenged the restitution order on three grounds: the applicability of the MVRA to his offense, the proof of actual pecuniary loss to the victims, and the causation of the losses. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, holding that the MVRA applied to Borino’s misprision offense because it involved concealment of wire fraud, a crime committed by fraud or deceit. The court found that the government had sufficiently proven the victims’ actual losses and that Borino’s continuous concealment of the fraud directly and proximately caused the victims’ losses. The court concluded that the district court did not err in ordering restitution of $21,223,036.37. View "United States v. Borino" on Justia Law

In June 2022, Juan Jose Vega-Santos was charged with illegal reentry into the United States following removal, under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)–(b). He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. The district court sentenced him to 60 months in prison, an upward variance from the advisory guidelines range, and imposed three years of supervised release with special conditions, including a requirement to undergo a psychosexual evaluation and participate in sex offender treatment if recommended by an evaluator.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas imposed the special condition as part of Vega-Santos's supervised release due to his prior felony conviction for sexual intercourse with a minor. Vega-Santos did not challenge this condition in the district court. On appeal, he argued that the condition constituted an unlawful delegation of the district court’s sentencing authority and was impermissibly ambiguous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the special condition requiring Vega-Santos to participate in sex offender treatment if recommended by an evaluator constituted an unlawful delegation of judicial authority. The court noted that the imposition of a sentence, including the terms and conditions of supervised release, is a core judicial function that cannot be delegated. The court found that the district court's error was clear or obvious and affected Vega-Santos's substantial rights. The error also seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the special condition and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Vega-Santos" on Justia Law