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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for distributing methamphetamine, using firearms to further a drug-trafficking crime, and possessing firearms as a convicted felon. The court held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied in this case and the district court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress; even if the good-faith exception did not apply, the affidavit gave the Texas district court a substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause to search defendant's home; defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury was not violated where the district court refused to dismiss the panel of potential jurors after one of them revealed that he was defendant's parole officer; and the district judge did not commit reversible error in concluding that defendant was a career offender within the meaning of the Guidelines. View "United States v. Huerra" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner after he was convicted of the capital murder of James Byrd and sentenced to death. Byrd's dismembered body was found by Jasper police officers in front of a church where it had been dragged by a truck. The court held that petitioner's ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IATC) claim lacked merit, even when reviewed de novo with petitioner's new evidence and ignoring the procedural bar. In this case counsel acted reasonably in handling the DNA evidence, the size 10 sandal evidence, the note to a coconspirator, and the State's evidence of petitioner's racial motive. The court rejected petitioner's remaining IATC claims and held that counsel maximized petitioner's chances of acquittal. Furthermore, even if counsel's performance was unreasonable, petitioner failed to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. View "King v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner after he was convicted of the capital murder of James Byrd and sentenced to death. Byrd's dismembered body was found by Jasper police officers in front of a church where it had been dragged by a truck. The court held that petitioner's ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IATC) claim lacked merit, even when reviewed de novo with petitioner's new evidence and ignoring the procedural bar. In this case counsel acted reasonably in handling the DNA evidence, the size 10 sandal evidence, the note to a coconspirator, and the State's evidence of petitioner's racial motive. The court rejected petitioner's remaining IATC claims and held that counsel maximized petitioner's chances of acquittal. Furthermore, even if counsel's performance was unreasonable, petitioner failed to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. View "King v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of bringing unlawful aliens into the United States for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, a violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). The court held that the totality of the evidence allowed the jury to reasonably infer that defendant acted with the requisite financial purpose. In this case, the evidence gave the jury an impression of both financial motive and the existence of a financial source, and the jury heard nothing to suggest otherwise. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of bringing unlawful aliens into the United States for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, a violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). The court held that the totality of the evidence allowed the jury to reasonably infer that defendant acted with the requisite financial purpose. In this case, the evidence gave the jury an impression of both financial motive and the existence of a financial source, and the jury heard nothing to suggest otherwise. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Texas Penal Code 30.02(a)(1) and (a)(3) are not distinct offenses, but are rather separate means of committing one burglary offense. To the extent that it was inconsistent with this holding, the Fifth Circuit overruled its earlier decision in United States v. Uribe. Applying the categorical approach, the court held that because Texas Penal Code 30.02(a)(3) is plainly broader than generic burglary, and because Texas Penal Code 30.02(a)(1) and (a)(3) are indivisible, neither of defendant's two convictions under the Texas burglary statute may serve as the predicates of a sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Herrold" on Justia Law

Stanford, then an attorney, was charged under 21 U.S.C. 841, 846(b)(1)(c), 813, 802(32)(A) with conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance analogue (CSA); conspiracy to introduce and cause to be introduced misbranded drugs into interstate commerce; and conspiracy to engage in money laundering. The product, "Mr. Miyagi," a synthetic cannabinoid, contained a Schedule I CSA, “AM– 2201,” The court concluded that Count One did not require an instruction that the jury must find that Stanford knew AM-2201 was a CSA but permitted Stanford to present evidence on the issue. A jury convicted Stanford on all counts, concluding, in a special interrogatory, that Stanford knew that AM-2201 was a CSA. The court sentenced Stanford to 121 months’ imprisonment. After the Supreme Court’s “McFadden” ruling, that a defendant had knowledge that a CSA was a CSA, the Fifth Circuit remanded as to Count One only. The district court resentenced Stanford on the remaining convictions, again to 121 months’ imprisonment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, upholding the denial of Stanford’s request for in camera review of co-conspirator witness reports and requests for reassignment to a different district judge. There was no reversible error in the calculation of the sentence for Count Two; U.S.S.G. 2N2.1 applies because the offense conduct was a violation of the FDCA for purposes of concealing the involvement with Mr. Miyagi. View "United States v. Stanford" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting aggravated theft, which carries a mandatory consecutive two-year prison term. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant because the jury could reasonably infer that when defendant accessed his bank accounts online, the online descriptions of the deposits were the same as reflected on the paper bank statements admitted at trial. Furthermore, the jury could have reasonably inferred that prior to the filing of the April 2013 tax returns, defendant knew or was deliberately ignorant regarding the fact that the bank drops were IRS tax refunds. Therefore, defendant's argument that he did not have the necessary intent under Rosemond v. United States, was thus unavailing. View "United States v. Carbins, Jr." on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and aiding and abetting a wire fraud scheme, the district court granted the Government's motion to restrain defendant's assets to preserve them for restitution and forfeiture. Defendant was then sentenced and ordered to pay restitution. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to partially vacate its earlier restraining order on his assets. The court held that the Sixth Amendment did not entitle defendant to use funds subject to the Government's post-conviction forfeiture lien to pay for appellate counsel of his choice. View "United States v. Scully" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of crack cocaine. The court held that any error in the magistrate judge's participation in the plea negotiations was not clear nor obvious. In this case, the magistrate judge facilitated the conversation between the parties and the entire exercise was aimed at ensuring that defendant had been fully advised of any formal offers. View "United States v. Draper" on Justia Law