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

The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not plainly err when it questioned a witness during defendant's criminal trial. The court noted that, although the jury verdict convicting defendant of only one count of transporting aliens when there was no dispute that six aliens were in defendant's trailer was odd, the unusual circumstances in United States v. Saenz, 134 F.3d 697, 701 (5th Cir. 1998), was not present. In this case, the district court issued curative instructions to the jury, and to the extent the district court erred, if at all, it did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding. The court vacated the final judgment and remanded to the district court to correct a clerical error. View "United States v. Perez-Melis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's application of a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement for a crime of violence under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on defendant's prior conviction of manslaughter. The court found that Missouri's manslaughter statute was non-generic under Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2247 (2016). Although the court found that the statute was divisible and could warrant an enhancement under the modified categorical approach, the documents of conviction did not indicate the subsection of conviction. Therefore, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Reyes-Contreras" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for the offense of depriving another of his rights while acting under color of law. In this case, defendant, while serving as a lieutenant in a Louisiana Sheriff's Office, had failed to intervene while a prisoner in a parish jail was beaten by other officers. The court held that defendant's argument about the validity of his guilty plea was unavailing because he raised a non-jurisdictional question about the Government's authority to prosecute. In this case, defendant waived any defect in the indictment when he pleaded guilty. The court also held that the district court properly found that all of the sentencing enhancements or adjustments applied to defendant's offense. Finally, defendant's 54 month sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Broussard" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner eligible for deportation under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for possessing a controlled substance in violation of Oklahoma law. Petitioner challenged both the determination that the Oklahoma schedule of controlled substances was a categorical match to the federal schedule and that in order to terminate his order of removal he was required to show a "realistic probability" that Oklahoma actually prosecutes cases involving substances not included in the federal schedules. The Fifth 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). The court held that petitioner waived this viable argument under Castillo-Rivera, because he never suggested that the realistic probability test was satisfied in this case. Because petitioner waived his only viable argument, the court denied relief. View "Rodriguez Vazquez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed Defendants Ganji and Davis' convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit health care fraud, holding that the evidence was insufficient to convict defendants. In regard to Dr. Ganji, the court held that the Government failed to present evidence that allowed any rational juror to infer the existence of a conspiratorial agreement beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the record substantiated that once Dr. Ganji became affiliated with a specific home health care agency, her patients followed her instead of having to establish a new doctor-patient relationship with a medical professional at a different home health care agency. Furthermore, although the Government presented a plausible scheme of fraudulence, it did not implicate Davis in the scheme with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that Dr. Ganji could not be held liable for fraudulence as a result of activity that was legal. Because the Government based Davis' fraud completely on the actions of Dr. Ganji, Davis also did not commit fraud. View "United States v. Ganji" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed Defendants Ganji and Davis' convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit health care fraud, holding that the evidence was insufficient to convict defendants. In regard to Dr. Ganji, the court held that the Government failed to present evidence that allowed any rational juror to infer the existence of a conspiratorial agreement beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the record substantiated that once Dr. Ganji became affiliated with a specific home health care agency, her patients followed her instead of having to establish a new doctor-patient relationship with a medical professional at a different home health care agency. Furthermore, although the Government presented a plausible scheme of fraudulence, it did not implicate Davis in the scheme with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that Dr. Ganji could not be held liable for fraudulence as a result of activity that was legal. Because the Government based Davis' fraud completely on the actions of Dr. Ganji, Davis also did not commit fraud. View "United States v. Ganji" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences arising from their participation in racketeering activities that centrally involve violence, murder, and the distribution of drugs for the Texas Syndicate gang in Uvalde, Texas. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants; evidence presented at trial relating to defendants' tattoos did not constitute error, much less plain error by the district court; the district court did not err by failing to give jury instructions regarding accomplice witness testimony and use of addictive drugs, as well as severance for one of the defendants; the district court did not prejudice Defendant Velasquez by failing to sua sponte sever his case from his codefendants; Velasquez's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was denied without prejudice to collateral review; Velasquez was properly sentenced; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant Sanchez's motion for mistrial; and reversal or remand was not warranted where there was not a substantial and significant portion of the record missing regarding Sanchez's severance. View "United States v. Velasquez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences arising from their participation in racketeering activities that centrally involve violence, murder, and the distribution of drugs for the Texas Syndicate gang in Uvalde, Texas. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants; evidence presented at trial relating to defendants' tattoos did not constitute error, much less plain error by the district court; the district court did not err by failing to give jury instructions regarding accomplice witness testimony and use of addictive drugs, as well as severance for one of the defendants; the district court did not prejudice Defendant Velasquez by failing to sua sponte sever his case from his codefendants; Velasquez's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was denied without prejudice to collateral review; Velasquez was properly sentenced; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant Sanchez's motion for mistrial; and reversal or remand was not warranted where there was not a substantial and significant portion of the record missing regarding Sanchez's severance. View "United States v. Velasquez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, holding that his guilty plea was rendered involuntary by ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC). Defendant claimed that he is not currently, nor ever was, under a legal duty to register in Texas and that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to make that claim. The court held that, under the circumstances of this case, counsel's lack of inquiry beyond comparing two statutes was IAC and defendant was prejudiced by it. Accordingly, the court rendered judgment granting defendant's motion. View "United States v. Shepherd" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's motions to suppress evidence filed after defendant pleaded guilty to drug-related charges. The court held that officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct the searches of defendant's residence, his dealership, and his mother's home; an officer's Terry-style frisk of defendant once he arrived at the dealership to transport defendant to his residence was proper given the visible bulges in defendant's pockets that were large enough to conceal weapons; and thus the district court did not err by denying the motions to suppress. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law