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

The Fifth Circuit vacated a certificate of appealability (COA) on two issues and dismissed the appeal. The court held that it had no jurisdiction to issue a COA on an issue in which the district court did not deny a COA. In this case, petitioner did not present to the district court, in any manner identifiable by that court, a claim that he was constructively denied counsel. Therefore, the district court did not consider the Cronic issues and thus the COA was granted without jurisdiction. View "Black v. Davis" on Justia Law

Movant, a federal death row inmate, sought authorization for a successive motion to vacate his death sentence, claiming that he is intellectually disabled. The Fifth Circuit held that the larger statutory context favors applying 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1)'s strict relitigation bar to federal prisoners. In this case, movant was barred from relitigating his Atkins claim and his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion presented only a single claim that was already presented in his original motion. Therefore, the court denied his request for authorization. View "In Re: Alfred Bourgeois" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and withdrew the previous opinions, substituting the following opinion.The court held that, in light of United States v. Herrold, defendant's conviction for burglary did not qualify as a predicate for the district court's application of a 16 level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Herrold abrogated prior decisions of this court that held that a conviction under Texas Penal Code 30.03(a)(1) was generic burglary. The court held, however, that defendant failed to satisfy the fourth prong of plain error review, because the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. View "United States v. Fuentes-Canales" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted petitioner a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the denial of two of his habeas claims. Petitioner's first claim alleged that his trial counsel was constitutionally deficient during the penalty phase of trial by failing to correct a potentially misleading impression created by one of his experts. Petitioner's second claim alleged that the State suppressed material impeachment evidence of a pretrial conversation between a State witness and the lead prosecutor in his case.The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner an evidentiary hearing and it properly denied petitioner's Strickland claim on the merits; the district court correctly held that petitioner's Brady claim was both procedurally defaulted and without merit; and the court rejected petitioner's claim of cumulative error. View "Murphy v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for evading arrest or detention while using a motor vehicle in violation of the Assimilative Crimes Act. The court held that security force officers on a military installation were included in the definitions of "peace officer" or "federal special investigator" and thus the factual basis for defendant's guilty plea supported a conviction under the Texas evading arrest or detention statute, as assimilated by the Act. In this case, defendant drove onto Fort Sam Houston, a military installation, without stopping at the entry gate for inspection. Security forces officers eventually forced defendant to stop by boxing in his vehicle. View "United States v. Hopkins" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of transportation of child pornography. The court held that defendant waived any challenge to the factual sufficiency of his guilty plea; the district court did err by applying a cross reference to USSG 2G2.1; the district court properly applied an obstruction of justice enhancement under USSG 3C1.1; and defendant waived his argument that his sentence was disproportionate to the severity of the offense. View "United States v. Richard" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for various immigration crimes stemming from his participation in efforts to recruit and retain undocumented immigrants for employment at WMI in Houston. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for conspiring to hire and for aiding and abetting in hiring undocumented aliens, for conspiracy to encourage or induce unlawful aliens to reside in the United States; and for aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of an above-Guidelines revocation sentence of 32 months' imprisonment for defendant. In this case, while serving a term of federal supervised release, defendant killed someone with a knife. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court did not sentence defendant for retributive purposes. Rather, the district court's entire focus at the revocation hearing was relitigating the dismissed murder case so it could make its own determination whether defendant acted justifiably. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant where it considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, and concluded that defendant's conduct created a significant risk of harm to the public and to deter defendant's future criminal conduct. View "United States v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for two sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that no jurisdictional or procedural hurdle barred defendant's consolidated appeal, and the district court erred in determining that it lacked authority to reduce her sentence pursuant to Amendment 782. In this case, the district court erred in concluding that defendant was ineligible for a sentence reduction because of its incorrect determination that defendant was sentenced under the career offender provisions rather than under the drug-quantity provisions. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Calton" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed defendant's sentence, holding that the district court relied on the wrong version of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that because defendant's burglary conviction was not an aggravated felony or a crime of violence, sentencing under the 2015 edition of the Guidelines would have generated a sentencing range lower than the one generated from the 2016 edition. The court also held that the error affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings and should be reversed. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Urbina-Fuentes" on Justia Law