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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's five year sentence, imposed after the revocation of defendant's supervised release. The court held that it was not plain that under existing law the statutory maximum revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court rejected defendant's request for the court to read United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 169–70 (5th Cir. 2009), to have established a broad proposition that any sentence that was lengthened by an apparent constitutional defect in prior proceedings was substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of habeas corpus ordering petitioner to be retried for killing the victim in a bar fight. The court held that the federal court failed to defer to the state court's reasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and therefore erred in granting petitioner habeas corpus relief. The court held that, given counsel's all-or-nothing strategy, he reasonably declined a "double-edged" manslaughter instruction that could have lowered petitioner's chances of an acquittal; even assuming counsel should have sought a sudden passion instruction, it was unlikely that the instruction would have changed petitioner's sentence; and neither conclusion would have been an objectively unreasonable application of Strickland by the state habeas court. View "Mejia v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he pleaded guilty to two counts of receipt of child pornography. The court held that the information at issue fell under the scope of the third-party doctrine. The court also held that the good faith exception applied where there was probable cause to search a residence based on just one or two uploads of child pornography, the information in the affidavit was not stale, and there was probable cause to search for and seize computers or other objects. View "United States v. Contreras" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 652 month sentence for drug trafficking and firearms offenses, arguing that the district court improperly enhanced his sentence by applying a two level adjustment pursuant to USSG 3B1.1(c) for being an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor in the underlying criminal activities.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err in applying the section 3B1.1(c) role enhancement. Nonetheless, the court remanded the case for the limited purpose of determining whether the district court wished to resentence defendant in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Dean v. United States. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit considered this case in light of the Court's decision in Mullenix v. Luna. Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that officers used excessive force when they shot and killed their son.The court affirmed the district court's denial of Officer Cassidy and Hunter's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, otherwise reinstated the court's previous opinion in this case, and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the district court did not weigh the evidence and resolve the factual dispute over the shooting and that a jury should resolve what happened on that night. View "Cole v. Hunter" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied movant's request for authorization to consider a successive motion to vacate his death sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h). The court held that movant's successive section 2255 motion presented only a single claim that was already presented in his original motion. In this case, movant was barred from relitigating his Atkins claim under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1)'s strict relitigation bar, which the court incorporated into section 2255(h)'s scheme. View "In Re: Alfred Bourgeois" on Justia Law

Defendants Bernard and Vialva were convicted of capital murder under federal law and sentenced to death. The Fifth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability (COA) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). The court held that defendants cited unrelated misconduct by the judge and then sought to link this to their substantive attacks on the federal court's previous resolution of a claim on the merits. Therefore, jurists of reason could not debate that the district court was correct to construe petitioners' filings as successive motions under section 2255. View "United States v. Vialva" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion seeking relief from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that the district court did not err in determining that the Rule 60(b) motion should be construed as a successive section 2254 petition, requiring authorization from this court prior to filing as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3). View "Gilkers v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry after having been deported. While his appeal was pending, the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. Herrold, 883 F.3d 517, 517 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc), that a conviction under the same Texas burglary statute was not a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. In light of Herrold, the government conceded that plaintiff was entitled to a vacated sentence. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Islas-Saucedo" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit held that Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), did not affect defendants' convictions for Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. 924(c). Therefore, the court affirmed its prior judgment regarding defendants' violations of section 924(c) as predicated on Hobbs Act robbery.The court held that section 924(c)'s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague and thus defendants' convictions and sentences for knowingly using, carrying, or brandishing a firearm to aid and abet conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery must be vacated. The court noted that its decision did not implicate the sentences on the other counts. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for entry of a revised judgment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law