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

After Angus McGinty, a former Texas state court judge, pleaded guilty to Honest Services Wire Fraud after accepting bribes for favorable rulings, he sought to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. 2255. McGinty argued that his attorneys' potential criminal liability created a conflict that infringed his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of McGinty's motion to vacate on an alternative basis. The court held that McGinty knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the purported conflict. In this case, if McGinty's attorneys had a conflict, the uncontested facts show that McGinty opportunistically knew, even took advantage of, that fact better than anyone. View "Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether and when the use of hash values by law enforcement is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit held that, under the private search doctrine, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated where the government does not conduct the search itself, but only receives and utilizes information uncovered by a search conducted by a private party.The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress child pornography found in his home. In this case, a private company determined that the hash values of files uploaded by defendant corresponded to the hash values of known child pornography images and passed this information on to law enforcement. The court held that this circumstance qualified as a private search for Fourth Amendment purposes because the government's subsequent law enforcement actions in reviewing the images did not effect an intrusion on defendant's privacy that he did not already experience as a result of the private search. View "United States v. Reddick" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of making a false statement in an immigration document in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1546(a) (Count 1); conspiracy to encourage and induce an illegal alien to reside in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) (Count 2); and encouraging an illegal alien to reside in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) (Counts 3-6). The court held that defendant's threshold challenges to section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) failed to establish reversible error and the evidence was sufficient to convict him of Counts 3-6; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of Count 1; defendant's challenges to the search warrants were rejected; and there was no error in the order of forfeiture. View "United States v. Anderton" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for offenses related to Medicare fraud perpetuated by herself and her husband through their jointly owned company. The court could not say that defendant's crime was not grave enough that the sentence of 75 years in prison was grossly disproportionate to her crime. Although the court noted that defendant was 54 years old and that she was currently receiving treatment for metastasized breast cancer, the court concluded that this information did not change the fact of her crimes and the legal system mandated that those criminally liable receive just punishments. Therefore, defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment and the district court did not plainly err by imposing defendant's sentence. Finally, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to substitute counsel. View "United States v. Neba" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of claimants' motion to release property under civil forfeiture law. The property at issue stemmed from the sale of synthetic cannabinoids that were a controlled substance or controlled substance analogues intended for human consumption.Determining that the court had jurisdiction over the appeal, the court held that, assuming arguendo, Supplemental Rule G(2)(f) applied in reviewing pretrial property restraints outside the motion-to-dismiss context, the district court used the right standard. In this case, the district asked whether the government's complaint "demonstrated with sufficient particularity for the current stage of the proceedings that defendants intentionally commingled tainted funds with untainted funds for the purpose of facilitating the alleged money laundering.” The court held that the facts here were sufficient to support this standard. The court also held that probable cause for forfeiture existed based on the charge for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. View "United States v. $472,871.95 in Funds Seized" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted a motion for stay pending appeal brought by fourteen judges in a class action against Harris County and its officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the County's system of setting bail for indigent misdemeanor arrestees violates Texas statutory and constitutional law and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court entered a stay of Sections 7, 8, 9, and 16 pending plenary resolution of this appeal by a merits panel. In this case, the expansive injunction entered on remand repeated the mistake of the original injunction because it amounted to the outright elimination of secured bail for indigent misdemeanor arrestees. View "O'Donnell v. Harris County" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to being unlawfully present in the United States after removal following his conviction for an aggravated felony. The court held that the district court did not plainly erred by applying a 10 level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2L1.2(b)(2)(A) based on an aggregate sentence of five years. View "United States v. Ponce-Flores" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for father and girlfriend in an action brought by stepfather, alleging malicious-prosecution and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress (IIED) claims under Louisiana law after father reported sexual misconduct inflicted on his child by stepfather. The court held that the independent investigation conducted by the STPSO broke the chain of causation between father and girlfriend's complaint and the criminal proceedings initiated against stepfather. Therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claim. The court also held that stepfather provided only cursory reference to the contention that the district court improperly dismissed his IIED claim. View "James v. Woods" on Justia Law

Defendants Peter Hoffman, Michael Arata, and Susan Hoffman challenged their convictions for crimes related to the submission of fraudulent claims for tax credits related to the film industry in Louisiana. The government challenged defendants' convictions.The Fifth Circuit rejected defendants' contention that the Louisiana tax credits are not "property" covered by the federal fraud statutes. The court held that the district court correctly found the tax credits were property subject to prosecution under the mail and wire fraud statutes, and this prosecution alleging the use of fabricated invoices and misleading bank transactions to obtain a financial benefit lies at the historic core of the federal fraud statutes and neither offends due process nor exceeds federal power. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Peter of 21 counts, Arata of 10 counts, and Susan of 3 counts. Furthermore, no ruling during the trial caused a miscarriage of justice.Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motions to dismiss the indictment; affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for judgment of acquittal; affirmed in part and reversed in part the grant of defendants' motions for judgment of acquittal; and affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for a new trial. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's forfeiture; vacated Peter's sentence and remanded for resentencing; affirmed Susan's sentence; and vacated Arata's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Arata" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for drug trafficking and killing while engaged in various drug-trafficking crimes. Defendant was a hitman for a violent drug cartel and his charges stemmed from efforts to kidnap, torture, and kill numerous people in order to carry out the cartel's purpose.The court held that, because the underlying drug-trafficking crimes reached extraterritorial conduct, 21 U.S.C. 848(e)(1), which punishes killing while engaged in certain major drug-trafficking crimes, did too. The court found clear congressional intent to punish the killing in addition to the underlying drug trafficking, and therefore held that no double jeopardy violation occurred when a defendant was convicted for both. Finally, the court held that defendant's claims of error regarding the jury instructions were without merit. View "United States v. Vasquez" on Justia Law