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

On appeal, defendant claimed that the district court erred by not enjoining the state from prosecuting him for pending misdemeanor charges. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that Younger abstention precluded an injunction, and dismissal of the case with prejudice. The court held that the district court correctly determined that the three criteria that generally require Younger abstention were satisfied where the federal proceeding would clearly interfere with an ongoing state judicial proceeding; the underlying state proceeding concerned the enforcement of state criminal laws, something in which the state has a strong interest; and defendant could raise his challenges to the state criminal proceedings in state court. The court rejected defendant's remaining contentions. View "Gates v. Strain" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted a petition for panel rehearing and withdrew its prior opinion, substituting the following opinion.Petitioner appealed the BIA's decision that he was eligible for deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for possessing a controlled substance in violation of Oklahoma law. This circuit has held that the realistic probability test applies whenever the categorical approach is employed. See United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 853 F.3d 218 (5th Cir. 2017) (en banc), cert. denied, No. 17-5054, 2017 WL 2855255 (Dec. 4, 2017). The court held that, given that the state statute is facially broader than its federal analog, Castillo-Rivera suggests that petitioner could prevail only if the realistic probability test was satisfied. However, petitioner failed to address the question in his brief on appeal, and thus waived the only argument available to him in the wake of Castillo-Rivera. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Rodriguez Vazquez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its previous opinion and issued the following opinion.Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and aiding and abetting retaliation against a witness in a criminal investigation. In this consolidated appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the evidence supporting his conviction in the firearms case. In this case, the Ping Order was issued pursuant to a valid arrest warrant and suppression was not a remedy for a violation of either the federal pen-trap statute or the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Because suppression was not warranted, the court need not address defendant's request for remand for resentencing regarding his aiding and abetting conviction. Therefore, the court dismissed that portion of the appeal as moot. View "United States v. Wallace" on Justia Law

After agreeing to hear this case en banc, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of a petition for habeas relief and order of a new trial. The district court found that the Mississippi Supreme Court erred when it concluded that the prosecution did not discriminate against black prospective jurors at petitioner's jury selection. The court held, however, that the prosecution in petitioner's case did what it was supposed to do; when it struck individual black prospective jurors, it gave specific race-neutral reasons for the strikes; and the state court found on multiple occasions that the prosecution did not invidiously discriminate against black prospective jurors. The court held that neither statutory ground for granting federal habeas relief applied to petitioner's case. View "Chamberlin v. Fisher" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 46-month sentence following a felon in possession of a firearm conviction. The court held that the district court did not plainly err by calculating both his criminal history score under USSG 4A1.1 and his base offense level under USSG 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). Even assuming arguendo that the district court plainly erred, the court declined to exercise its discretion in correcting the error in light of defendant's criminal history. View "United States v. Carlile" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and issued the following opinion.The court held that the district court erred by assigning criminal history points for both defendant's North Carolina offenses given that they were consolidated into a single judgment. Furthermore, such error was obvious and affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. In this case, the error reflected a basic misunderstanding of the state sentencing scheme under which defendant was sentenced. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Marroquin" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and issued the following opinion.The court held that the district court erred by assigning criminal history points for both defendant's North Carolina offenses given that they were consolidated into a single judgment. Furthermore, such error was obvious and affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. In this case, the error reflected a basic misunderstanding of the state sentencing scheme under which defendant was sentenced. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Marroquin" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit declined defendant's invitation to announce general rules concerning the application of the government's historically broad border-search authority to modern technology for which the Supreme Court has recognized increased privacy interests. The court held that the nonforensic search of defendant's cell phone at the border was supported by probable cause and thus, at a minimum, the border patrol agents had a good-faith basis for believing the search did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendants' drug-related conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Molina-Isidoro" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to intentionally damaging a protected computer after temporarily disabling a portion of Citibank's network. The court held that defendant's conduct did not have a serious impact on the national economic security and thus his Guidelines range was improperly increased under USSG 2B1.1(b)(18)(A)(iii), which applied to conduct causing a "substantial disruption of a critical infrastructure." In this case, as a result of defendant's actions, Citibank suffered relatively minor financial losses and was temporarily unable to optimally serve its customers. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to intentionally damaging a protected computer after temporarily disabling a portion of Citibank's network. The court held that defendant's conduct did not have a serious impact on the national economic security and thus his Guidelines range was improperly increased under USSG 2B1.1(b)(18)(A)(iii), which applied to conduct causing a "substantial disruption of a critical infrastructure." In this case, as a result of defendant's actions, Citibank suffered relatively minor financial losses and was temporarily unable to optimally serve its customers. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law