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

A lawful permanent resident from Haiti was admitted to the United States in 2016. He later pleaded guilty to smuggling goods, specifically exporting fifty firearms to Haiti without the required license, in violation of federal law. These firearms were concealed in vehicles shipped from Colorado to Florida, and then sent to Haiti. Following his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, charging him as removable for engaging in activity to violate U.S. laws prohibiting the export of goods.An Immigration Judge with the U.S. Department of Justice sustained the charges of removability and denied his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The judge found his testimony lacking in candor and determined that he failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not he would be tortured if removed to Haiti. The judge noted that threats against him were speculative, not linked to government action or acquiescence, and that his relatives in Haiti remained safe. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision, rejected his argument that the removal provision should apply only to explicit national security threats, and concluded that his conviction for illegal exportation satisfied the statutory grounds for removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the petition for review, holding that the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(A)(i) covers any activity to violate laws prohibiting the export of goods, not just acts involving national security threats. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT deferral, as the petitioner failed to show a particularized risk of torture or government acquiescence, and that no due process violation had occurred. View "Olibris v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A woman brutally murdered an 80-year-old man in Amarillo, Texas, stabbing him 58 times, binding him, and shoving a lamp down his throat. After the murder, she used his money to buy drugs and fled the state. She later confessed to the crime. At trial, her defense was self-defense, claiming a prolonged struggle with the victim, who was frail and wheelchair-bound. The prosecution presented evidence from multiple witnesses, including the defendant’s confession relayed by her mother, police officers, and a cellmate, as well as significant physical evidence and testimony about the brutality of the crime.A Texas jury convicted her of capital murder and sentenced her to death after finding she posed a continuing threat and that there were insufficient mitigating circumstances. On direct appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected her arguments, and the Supreme Court denied review. She then pursued state postconviction relief, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and that the prosecution failed to disclose evidence impeaching her cellmate, a prosecution witness. The state habeas court denied these claims, finding that her lawyers’ investigation was reasonable and that the allegedly withheld information was not material.She filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which was denied. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit later granted relief on one claim, finding a Brady violation, but the Fifth Circuit then reheard the case en banc.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc and reviewing under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), affirmed the district court’s denial of relief. The court held that the state court’s application of Brady v. Maryland was not unreasonable under AEDPA, as the alleged suppression was not material to the outcome given the overwhelming evidence of guilt and future dangerousness. The judgment denying habeas relief was affirmed. View "Holberg v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident of the United States, who is a Nigerian citizen, pleaded guilty to willfully and knowingly using a forged or counterfeit Nigerian passport to open a bank account, violating federal law. Years after becoming a permanent resident, he was detained upon his return to the country following international travel. The Department of Homeland Security charged him with inadmissibility, alleging that his conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude, and began removal proceedings.An immigration judge found him inadmissible based on this conviction and ordered his removal to Nigeria. The Board of Immigration Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the immigration judge’s decision. The petitioner then sought review of the Board’s order, arguing that his conviction for false use of a passport does not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court stated that it now independently interprets the relevant statutes, following recent Supreme Court guidance. Applying the categorical approach, the Fifth Circuit concluded that a conviction under the relevant passport fraud statute—specifically, willful and knowing use of a false, forged, or invalid passport—requires conduct that is inherently fraudulent or deceitful. The court found that all forms of conduct criminalized by the statute involve moral turpitude because they entail willful deception. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner’s conviction is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, making him inadmissible under immigration law. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Ademola v. Blanche" on Justia Law

Terrance Morgan was serving a term of supervised release after completing a federal sentence for firearm and drug offenses. During his supervision, Morgan committed several violations: he failed to attend substance abuse treatment, had multiple positive drug tests for controlled substances, did not report to or communicate with his probation officer as required, failed to provide proof of employment, and was convicted in state court for battery upon a dating partner and simple battery. Following his arrest for these violations, Morgan completed a thirty-day inpatient drug treatment program and was placed on home detention with location monitoring.After these events, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held a revocation hearing. Morgan admitted to the violations but argued that his recent successful completion of inpatient treatment warranted an exception to mandatory revocation of his supervised release. His counsel requested a continuance to allow for further demonstration of progress, but the district court denied the request, revoked his supervised release, and imposed an eight-month prison sentence followed by another term of supervised release. The court expressed concern about the escalation of Morgan’s behavior and the seriousness of the domestic violence conviction. A motion to reconsider was subsequently denied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Morgan’s claims that the district court failed to consider the statutory exception for drug treatment, relied on erroneous facts, applied the wrong version of the Sentencing Guidelines, and abused its discretion in denying a continuance. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err in declining to apply the drug treatment exception, did not clearly err in its factual findings, made only harmless error in referencing an earlier version of the Guidelines, and did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Gerald Talman Brann pleaded guilty to sexually exploiting his stepdaughter, agreeing that he and his wife had photographed and videoed sexual abuse of the child and distributed these materials online. The victim, who was as young as six at the time of some offenses, suffered significant psychological and emotional harm, now requiring therapy, tutoring, and counseling. Brann’s plea agreement included a commitment to pay at least $100,000 in restitution for the child's future counseling costs, and he waived his right to appeal his conviction, sentence, or restitution order.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas accepted Brann’s guilty plea to one count under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), sentenced him to 360 months in prison and a lifetime of supervised release, and ordered $100,000 in restitution. The court’s findings were based on the plea agreement, a presentence investigation report, and a victim impact statement outlining the child's ongoing and anticipated needs. Brann did not object to the restitution order at sentencing.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Brann argued that the restitution exceeded the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 because the amount was not supported by evidence of the victim’s actual or projected losses. The Fifth Circuit held that an appeal waiver does not bar a claim that a sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, and reviewed the restitution order de novo. The court determined that Brann’s admissions, along with corroborating evidence and precedent from similar cases, provided sufficient support for the $100,000 amount. The court affirmed the restitution order and remanded the case to the district court solely to correct a clerical error in the written judgment regarding the offense of conviction. View "USA v. Brann" on Justia Law

Federal agents discovered that an individual in San Antonio, Texas had accessed a website on the dark web featuring child sexual abuse material. Upon executing a search warrant, investigators found thousands of illicit images and videos on the suspect's devices. The defendant subsequently pled guilty to receipt of child pornography under federal law. Because the defendant had a prior Texas state conviction for possession of child pornography, federal prosecutors sought a statutory sentencing enhancement that significantly increased the minimum and maximum prison terms.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas rejected the defendant’s argument that the enhancement was inapplicable, finding the prior Texas conviction sufficiently related to the federal offense. The district judge sentenced the defendant to the enhanced minimum of fifteen years and ordered him to pay $94,000 in restitution to fourteen victims. The defendant’s objections to both the enhancement and the restitution order were overruled.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the statutory interpretation issue de novo and the restitution issues for plain error. The court held that the phrase “relating to” in 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1) should be given its ordinary, broad meaning, affirming the district court’s application of the sentencing enhancement. The court also affirmed the restitution order for eleven victims, finding the district court had an adequate basis for proximate-cause analysis as required by Paroline v. United States. However, the court vacated the restitution order for three victims, concluding the record lacked sufficient evidence of proximate-cause analysis for those individuals, and remanded for further proceedings. View "USA v. Mendoza" on Justia Law

The defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, admitting to prior felony convictions in California, including robbery and a drug offense. The presentence report assigned him a higher base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines, finding he had two qualifying prior convictions: the California robbery and the California drug conviction. The report also added two criminal history points for the drug conviction, noting that attorney representation was unknown but citing California law requiring counsel or a valid waiver for felony defendants. After reductions for acceptance of responsibility, the Guidelines range was set at 77 to 96 months.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas adopted the presentence report’s findings and sentenced the defendant to 77 months imprisonment. The defendant objected to the classification of his California robbery conviction as a crime of violence under the newer Guideline definition and to the inclusion of criminal history points for the drug conviction, arguing it was uncounseled. The district court overruled his objections, relying on precedent and the record’s presumption of lawful procedure.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the defendant’s motion to supplement the record. It reviewed de novo whether California robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the amended Guidelines. The court held that California robbery is a categorical match for the Guidelines’ definition of robbery, which does not require a specific mens rea, thus qualifying as a crime of violence. The court also reviewed the addition of criminal history points for the drug conviction for plain error and found no clear or obvious error, given the presumption of regularity for state convictions and insufficient evidence of a constitutional violation. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. View "USA v. Williams" on Justia Law

An investigator with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives received a referral regarding Karina Deluna’s purchase of eight firearms from a Houston pawn shop, one of which was later recovered in Mexico. Subsequent investigation revealed strong indicators of “straw purchasing,” meaning Deluna falsely claimed she was buying the firearms for herself, but was actually acquiring them for others in exchange for commission. Special Agents conducted three interviews with Deluna, none of which included Miranda warnings. During these interviews, Deluna eventually confessed to purchasing firearms for her sister-in-law’s boyfriend, and a search of her phone uncovered further incriminating evidence. Deluna and her associate, Haley Medlin, were indicted on charges related to false statements on firearm records, conspiracy, and smuggling.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas presided over the trial. Medlin pled guilty to aiding and abetting and received probation. Deluna was tried on a superseding indictment for conspiracy, smuggling, and seven counts of false statements. At trial, Medlin and Special Agent Bynog testified, and recordings of Deluna’s interviews and her written confession were admitted. The jury found Deluna guilty of conspiracy and all false statement counts, but acquitted her of smuggling. The court sentenced Deluna to an aggregate of 87 months’ imprisonment, within the Sentencing Guidelines range. Deluna timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Deluna’s challenges to the voluntariness of her statements, evidentiary rulings, and the reasonableness of her sentence. The court held that the second interview was voluntary and the admission of the third interview, even if involuntary, was harmless error due to cumulative evidence and overwhelming proof of guilt. The evidentiary rulings were not abuses of discretion, and Deluna’s sentence was substantively reasonable. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Deluna" on Justia Law

The defendant, Munson Hunter, was indicted on multiple counts of bank and wire fraud for his role in a scheme that caused significant financial losses. After raising concerns about his mental health and undergoing a competency evaluation, Hunter pleaded guilty to one count in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining charges. His plea agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. At sentencing, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas imposed a term of supervised release with a special condition requiring Hunter to participate in a mental health program and take any medication prescribed by his physician. Hunter objected to being compelled to take medication.Despite the appellate waiver, Hunter appealed the medication condition, arguing it infringed on his due process rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit initially dismissed his appeal, relying on circuit precedent that recognized only limited exceptions to appeal waivers. The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently granted certiorari and announced a new rule: appeal waivers are unenforceable if their enforcement would result in a "miscarriage of justice"—that is, if they would leave in place an obvious and egregious error undermining the integrity of the judicial system.On remand, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s new standard. The court determined that the record supported the imposition of the medication condition, finding no "blatant" constitutional error or egregious statutory violation. The court concluded that requiring Hunter to take prescribed medication as part of supervised release did not constitute the kind of obvious judicial error that would render the waiver unenforceable. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that Hunter’s appeal waiver remained effective and dismissed the appeal. View "USA v. Hunter" on Justia Law

The defendant, after previously pleading guilty to aggravated criminal damage to property under Louisiana law, was found in possession of a firearm. His earlier offense involved intentionally damaging vehicles during a police traffic stop, endangering human life, which led to a three-year sentence. After serving his sentence, he was again found with a firearm, resulting in an indictment for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana reviewed the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, in which he argued that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court denied the motion. The defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial, and was sentenced to 56 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to the defendant, considering whether the government's justification for permanent disarmament was supported by a historical tradition consistent with the Second Amendment, as outlined in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Fifth Circuit found that the government had not met its burden to demonstrate a relevant historical analogue for disarming individuals with a property crime predicate like the defendant’s. The court declined to expand precedent by treating aggravated property damage as sufficiently violent for permanent disarmament under historical going-armed laws.The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s order denying the motion to dismiss and remanded the case for reconsideration. The main holding was that, absent sufficient evidence of a historical tradition supporting disarmament for this type of predicate felony, the government had not justified the application of § 922(g)(1) to the defendant. View "USA v. Debrow" on Justia Law