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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for bringing methamphetamine from Mexico into the United States. The court held that, although the government engaged in misconduct where the prosecution used drug profiling evidence and bolstered witnesses' credibility, defendant failed to meet the heavy burden of obtaining reversal for the errors because he did not object to them during trial. The court also held that there was no clear Confrontation Clause violation when an agent mentioned a tip implicating defendant. Finally, there was no cumulative error in this case. View "United States v. Sosa" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and dismissed defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant argued that his sentence should not have been enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court held that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), was not a jurisdictional predicate for defendant's motion and thus the district court did not have jurisdiction to reach the merits of the motion. View "United States v. Wiese" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. The Fifth Circuit held that, to the extent defendant challenged the reliability of the presentence report's determination that he admittedly reentered the United States illegally on November 23, 2010, he has forfeited that argument by raising it for the first time in his reply brief. Even if the claim were not forfeited, the district court did not err by relying on defendant's admitted date of entry. The court also held that defendant's contention that his prior convictions should not have been used to enhance his sentence under USSG 2L1.2(b) was without merit, because defendant's prior convictions were within the requisite time period from his illegal reentry date in order to receive criminal history points under USSG 4A1.2(e)(1). Finally, the court held that defendant failed to show that the extent of the district court's downward departure based on the age of his 1996 conviction constituted an abuse of discretion. View "United States v. Solis Ponce" on Justia Law

On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing in light of Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018).The district court had denied defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels in the drug quantity table of U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(c). In Hughes, the Supreme Court abrogated this circuit's holding in United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807, 810 (5th Cir. 2016), and held that a sentence imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c) or "Type-C" plea agreement was typically based on the sentencing guideline range because the court must first evaluate the stipulated sentence in light of the defendant's sentencing guideline range. The Court further held that a sentence imposed pursuant to a Type–C agreement is based on the defendant's Guidelines range so long as that range was part of the framework the district court relied on in imposing the sentence or accepting the agreement. In this case, defendant entered into a Type-C agreement and his sentence was based on his guideline range because it was part of the framework the court relied upon in imposing his sentence. View "United States v. Armstead" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Christopher Young's requests to stay his execution. Young alleged that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles' decision not to recommend commutation to the Governor violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction in this case, but that Young failed to show that he was likely to succeed on the merits. The court explained that Young has not made a strong showing that if the court were to temporarily stay the execution and allow discovery, he would find evidence of discrimination. View "Young v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's restitution order imposed after defendant pleaded guilty to one count of producing child pornography, one count of transporting child pornography, and one count of possessing child pornography. Defendant was sentenced to 600 months in prison and ordered to pay $1,443,619.63 in restitution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2259. Defendant argued that the restitution order contravened Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014), because the district court failed to determine whether his conduct proximately caused the victims' alleged losses. In this case, the fact that the district court entered a legally binding restitution order without ensuring that the amount was authorized by statute was sufficient to warrant the court's exercise of discretion under the fourth prong of plain error review. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Winchel" on Justia Law

Defendants Smith and Washington were convicted of sex trafficking involving a fourteen-year-old girl. The Fifth Circuit affirmed Washington's conviction and sentence, holding that sufficient evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion that defendant was guilty; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying her motion for severance; and her 292 month sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court held, however, that the district court erred by denying Smith's motion for counsel and thus violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Therefore, the court reversed Smith's convictions and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to suppress after they pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The court held that the totality of the circumstances supported the denial of the motion to suppress where the border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle while on roving patrol of an area known to be used for smuggling; the vehicle at issue stood out from the typical truck or SUV used by local ranch vehicles; and the driver was going well below the posted speed limit, was tapping the brakes as though lost or searching for something along the road, pulled over at a known pickup point, and looked into the distance; and when the agent saw the vehicle a short time later, numerous additional passengers had appeared. View "United States v. Robles-Avalos" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging, among other things, that the initial bite from a police dog and the continued biting were excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed the initial bite claim on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion and denied summary judgment to the officer.The Fifth Circuit held that there was no Fourth Amendment violation because the totality of the circumstances and the Graham factors established that the officer's use of force was not objectively unreasonable. In this case, police were chasing plaintiff after he assaulted his wife, they were informed that they would have to kill plaintiff to get him, he had a knife, and was bitten by the dog until he was fully handcuffed by the police. Therefore, the court reversed the denial of qualified immunity to the officer. The court dismissed the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded. View "Escobar v. Montee" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of Texas's motion for summary judgment on the basis that petitioner's habeas corpus petition was time-barred. Petitioner argued, and the state conceded, that his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition was timely because his state conviction became final on July 16, 2014—90 days after the TCCA refused his petition for discretionary review on April 16, 2014 and his time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court expired. The court held that, because petitioner filed the application on November 12, 2015 -- before the November 25, 2015 deadline -- his section 2254 application was timely. View "Erickson v. Davis" on Justia Law