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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's calculation of defendant's criminal history points after he pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of firearms with altered and obliterated serial numbers. However, the court held that the record did not clearly demonstrate that defendant's sentence was not influenced in any way by the erroneous Guideline calculation. The court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing so that the district court may determine, in the first instance, whether supplemental evidence should be considered and, if so, whether such evidence is sufficient to establish the requisite intent. View "United States v. Soza" on Justia Law

The Sentencing Guidelines' obstruction-of-justice enhancement covers false statements made to obtain appointed counsel. Defendant pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex offender and challenged the length of his prison term and some of the conditions of his supervised release. The Fifth Circuit followed the previous decisions of this court and those of the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits in holding that lying to a judicial officer, as defendant did in this case, to obtain appointed counsel qualifies as obstruction under the Guidelines. The court vacated the second condition of supervised release because allowing private therapists to set restrictions on a defendant's conduct, without the court having to approve those restrictions, usurps a judge's exclusive sentencing authority. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Iverson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. Defendant was sentenced in part based on two points for a North Carolina conviction for a drug offense in 2005. Another two points were for a North Carolina conviction for violating the same statute in 2006. The North Carolina court had consolidated those two cases into a single judgment and sentenced defendant accordingly. The court held that it was obvious error to score the consolidated sentence twice and the court chose to correct the error in light of its effect on the sentence combined with the nature of the error. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Rios Marroquin" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to sexually exploiting a minor. The court held that the district court did not make a definitive and conclusive statement regarding the sentence to be imposed, and directly invited defendant to speak on any topic of his choosing before it formally announced and imposed the sentence. Therefore, the district court did not commit an error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 that was clear or obvious. Furthermore, the district court did not err by applying a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility to his adjusted offense level of 51. View "United States v. Pittsinger" on Justia Law

A pre-trial detainee denied access to the judicial system for a prolonged period has been denied basic procedural due process. In this case, plaintiff was indicted by a grand jury, arrested, and put in jail where she waited for 96 days to be brought before a judge and was effectively denied bail. The Fifth Circuit held that this excessive detention deprived plaintiff of liberty without legal or due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jauch v. Choctaw County" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, ten counts of distributing or dispensing a controlled substance, and three counts of bankruptcy fraud. The court held that the district court did not err by rejecting defendant's proposed jury instructions because they were either substantively incorrect or irrelevant; even assuming that the prosecutor impermissibly used defendant's husband's pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence, there was no error because the husband does not speak for defendant; the court rejected defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct; the government did not improperly amend its indictment; and the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. View "United States v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Defendants Byron, Deloyd, and Sidney appealed their convictions of numerous felonies related to their membership in a group called Ride or Die (ROD), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of certain evidence, the refusal to adopt proposed jury instructions, and application of the sentencing guidelines. The Fifth Circuit reversed with respect to Counts 9 and 10 (assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering in violation of Louisiana's aggravated assault statute), holding that there was insufficient evidence as to how the shooting related to Byron's membership in ROD or the charge conspiracies. The court also reversed as to Counts 13 and 14 (assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering in violation of Louisiana's aggravated assault statute), holding that there was insufficient proof regarding the relationship between the shooting and ROD or the charged conspiracies and thus a failure of proof on how the shooting was in "aid of racketeering." The court affirmed as to the remaining counts. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit held that defendant's claim that his sentence enhancement was no longer valid under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), was constitutionally based and warranted relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. As a preliminary matter, the government conceded that defendant's injury to a child conviction no longer counted as an ACCA predicate after Johnson, and that, if defendant's claim was constitutionally based, then his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. In this case, the district court did not specify under which clause of the ACCA it was sentencing defendant. Texas's injury to a child offense was broader than the ACCA's elements clause, and the injury to a child conviction was necessary to sustain defendant's sentence enhancement because it was one of the three required predicate offenses. The court reasoned that this was sufficient to show that section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) may no longer authorize defendant's sentence as that statute stands after Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2563 (2015). The court vacated the ACCA enhancement and ordered defendant's immediate release. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's classification of defendant as a Tier III sex offender based on his prior conviction for touching a child for lustful purposes in violation of Mississippi Code section 97–5–23. The court applied the categorical approach and held that the Mississippi statute and the federal offense of abusive sexual contact were comparable. In this case, the relevant offenses contain comparable elements, even if the body parts that were the subject of the touching were specifically listed in the federal definition. View "United States v. Young" on Justia Law

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) has no notice and hearing requirement. In this case, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the Government's Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of defendant's sentence and rejected defendant's contention that he was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard in his Rule 35(b) proceeding prior to the district court's order. The court declined to apply the reasoning in United States v. Gangi, 45 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 1995), and concluded that the district court did not err by ruling on the Rule 35(b) motion before defendant responded. View "United States v. McMahan" on Justia Law