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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of the first degree murder of her young children. The court held that petitioner did not meet her burden to prove that the State used its peremptory strikes with the intent to discriminate against women and thus she failed to show that her attorney's representation was prejudicial when he did not object to the State's use of its peremptory strikes. The court also held that petitioner failed to prove that she was insane by a preponderance of the evidence and thus the state court's decision was not an objectively unreasonable application of law. View "Hebert v. Rogers" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated in part and remanded in part defendant's 51 month sentence for conspiracy to maintain a chop shop. The court held that defendant was not "in the business" of receiving and selling stolen property and thus the district court erroneously applied a two level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2B6.1(b)(2). The court affirmed the district court's application of a two level enhancement for a leadership role under USSG 3B1.1(c). The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the sentencing court's refusal to grant a downward departure under USSG 5H1.11 based on defendant's prior military service where the record did not suggest the district court based its decision on an erroneous belief that it lacked the authority to depart. Accordingly, the court dismissed as to this issue. View "United States v. Fillmore" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied petitioner a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. In this case, petitioner requested a COA on whether he demonstrated a fundamental miscarriage of justice by raising a meritorious actual-innocence claim under Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). The court held that petitioner failed to show that reasonable jurists would disagree with the district court's ruling that his claims were procedurally defaulted. Furthermore, the court held that no reasonable jurist would disagree that he failed to prove actual innocence and therefore he could not overcome procedural default. View "Fratta v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the district court's denial of her request to receive a certificate described in 28 U.S.C. 2513 from the district court that set aside the conviction. In this case, defendant was convicted of and imprisoned for various federal crimes, only to have her conviction set aside ten years later for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that the statute made clear, and the court's case law supported, that plaintiff must show that the district court vacated her conviction because she was not guilty—not just that the district court discussed her innocence, or even mentioned that it thought she was not guilty. Because plaintiff's conviction was set aside on procedural grounds, she failed to satisfy section 2513(a)(1). Therefore, plaintiff failed to identify any reversible error in the district court's denial of her certificate. View "Hernandez v. United States" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied motions for authorization to file a successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2244, and for a stay of execution. Movant was sentenced to death after he used a semiautomatic assault rifle to open fire on a children's birthday party, injuring party attendees and killing a grandmother and her five year old granddaughter. The court held that movant failed to make a prima facie showing that the factual predicate for his new habeas claim could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence and thus could not have been included in his first federal petition. The court also held that he failed to make a prima facie showing that, based on the testimony at issue, no reasonable juror would have found him guilty; movant's claim was not dismissed on the basis of an independent and adequate state procedural ground; and the Brady claim movant wished to raise with the district court was therefore alternatively time-barred. View "In Re: Erick Davila" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegal reentry. The court held that defendant's possible misunderstanding of the consequences of testifying triggered no duty for the district court to explain the right to testify. The court also held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment where the court's precedent foreclosed his argument that the district court should have dismissed his indictment based on defects in his removal proceedings. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Aparicio" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims against the City and Eddie Salame, Chief of the Grapevine Police Department (GPD). The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Officer Robert Clark on plaintiff's remaining excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 on the basis of qualified immunity. Ruben Garcia-Villalpando was shot and killed by Clark. Given the tense and evolving factual circumstances, the court held that Clark reasonably believed that Garcia-Villalpando posed a threat of serious harm. In this case, Garcia-Villalpando fled the scene of a serious crime, drove recklessly and endangered others, refused to obey roughly thirty commands, and approached Clark on a narrow highway shoulder directly adjacent to speeding traffic. The court explained that the fact that Garcia-Villalpando was ultimately found to have been unarmed was immaterial. Because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Garcia-Villalpando's Fourth Amendment rights were violated, her claims against the City and Salame for failure to train and inadequate screening/hiring failed as well. View "Romero v. Grapevine, Texas," on Justia Law

The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) criminalizes possession of certain unregistered firearms, including silencers and “destructive devices” like grenades. Sentences for such crimes may be enhanced based on the number of devices involved. In a sting operation, Maturino tried to buy 144 live grenades (plus other firearms) from an undercover ATF agent for a Mexican drug cartel, but 143 were inert. Maturino pleaded guilty under the Act/ The district court, quoting Sentencing Guidelines commentary, imposed an eight-level enhancement based on the number of grenades “sought to be obtained.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Maturino’s argument that his sentence should reflect what he bought (one live grenade) not what he sought. Maturino’s plan to stockpile live grenades failed, but the sentencing court properly considered what he pursued, not what he possessed. View "United States v. Maturino" on Justia Law

Sam, aged 16, walked with friends to Walmart, where they split up. The group left the store; Stag, stole a jacket. At 9:49 p.m., Officer Richard responded to the reported theft, encountered Sam’s group, and activated his emergency lights. Sam’s group scattered. Another officer threatened to release a dog if they didn’t stop. Sam lay face down on the ground, with his hands on the back of his head. Sam stated in deposition that Richard slapped Sam's face, kneed him, handcuffed him, and shoved him against a car. The slap did not break the skin, but a scrape drew blood from Sam’s hip. Richard agreed that Sam did not resist, but denied using force. Another officer handcuffed Stag. Both were placed in Richard’s patrol car. Richard returned to Walmart at 10:03 p.m. A security guard identified Stag as the thief. At 10:45 p.m., Richard drove the boys to the police station. Sam’s mother picked him up. Sam did not visit a doctor that night. One of Sam’s friends stated in deposition that Sam “looked like he got hit” and “his face was a little red and bruised.” Medical records generated about six weeks later indicate that Sam complained of lingering hip pain. The district court dismissed Sam’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint. The Fifth Circuit vacated in part. Sam’s evidence of excessive force is sufficient to survive a summary judgment motion. The court affirmed rejection of an unjustified detention claim. View "Sam v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated appellee's 80 month sentence and remanded for resentencing. In this case, appellee pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana. The court held that a motion by the government was required for the district court to depart below the minimum term of imprisonment established by Congress for the drug offense appellee committed. Therefore, it was error for the district court to sua sponte depart from the minimum. View "United States v. Sealed Appellee" on Justia Law