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

The Supreme Court remanded this case for further consideration in light of Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017). On remand, the parties agreed that the predicate offense of which defendant was convicted, Tennessee statutory rape, was broader than the generic crime of statutory rape because the age of consent in Tennessee is 18. Therefore, defendant's statutory rape conviction did not qualify either as an aggravated felony for purposes of 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) or as a crime of violence for purposes of USSG. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The Fifth Circuit remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to reflect the correct offense of conviction as under section 1326(b)(1). The court dismissed the appeal of defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Ovalle-Garcia" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for two counts related to his participation in a drug trafficking conspiracy. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Furthermore, the district court did not err by instructing the jury on deliberate ignorance. However, the district court misapplied the body-armor provision of the sentencing guidelines and the error was not harmless. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Juarez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 120 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by imposing an enhancement for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); the district court did not plainly err by adopting the PSR's recommendation that he should not be given a sentence reduction under USSG 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility; defendant's argument that the government selectively and vindictively prosecuted him lacked adequate legal support and was also waived; and the district court did not plainly err by imposing a base offense level of 22. View "United States v. Hott" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of 100 kilograms or more of marijuana with intent to distribute and received a below-guidelines sentence of twelve months and one day in prison as well as a three-year term of supervised release. The Fifth Circuit vacated the substance-abuse treatment special condition because it was ambiguous as to the scope of the district court's delegation of authority to the probation office. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Barber" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence enhancements after she pleaded guilty to conspiracy with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the organizer or leader enhancement where the district court's determination that defendant qualified as an organizer or leader under USSG 3B1.1 was not clearly erroneous because it was plausible in light of the record. The district court also did not err in applying the criminal livelihood enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(15)(E). Finally, defendant's below-Guidelines sentence of 240 months in prison was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of crimes related to his involvement in a Texas crime syndicate. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress where suppression was not a remedy for a violation of either the federal pen-trap statute or the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In the alternative, even if accessing defendant's cell phone's E911 data did constitute a Fourth Amendment search, DPS's actions were covered by the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and dismissed the part of defendant's request for remand for resentencing as moot. View "United States v. Wallace" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 176 kilograms of marijuana. The court held that the district court did clearly err by denying defendant a mitigating-role reduction under USSG 3B1.2. Furthermore, the district court did not plainly err when it added three criminal history points based on defendant's 1991 Texas conviction for burglary of a vehicle. View "United States v. Escobar" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit held that Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), did not abrogate United States v. Velasco, 465 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that the Illinois aggravated battery statute was divisible. In this case, the district court did not err in following Velasco and applying the crime-of-violence enhancement to defendant's sentence. Aggravated battery involving use of a deadly weapon under the Illinois statute was a discrete offense requiring proof of the use of a deadly weapon. The court explained that it has been established, categorically, that the offense of which defendant was convicted represented a crime of violence under the Guidelines. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Reyes" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of defendant's 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. In this case, defendant's brief was based entirely on his unsupported assumption that he was eligible for a reduction in sentence under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Because he has not assigned error to, or briefed, the issue of his eligibility for a reduction under Amendment 782, review of that issue was waived. The court reaffirmed the holding in United States v. Cox, 317 F. App'x 401 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that a district court was not required to state findings of facts and conclusions of law in denying a section 3582(c)(2) motion. The court rejected defendant's claim that he was also eligible for sentencing relief under United States v. Holloway, 68 F. Supp. 3d 310 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), because the facts in defendant's case were sufficiently distinguishable from Holloway. Finally, claims regarding the validity of the original conviction and sentence were not cognizable by way of a section 3582(c)(2) motion. View "United States v. Berry" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for illegal reentry. The court held that, if the district court erred by applying a sixteen-level enhancement to defendant's sentence, the error was harmless. In this case, the district court repeatedly mentioned the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and concluded that a higher sentence was necessary even if it was error in regard to the guidelines based on factors that clearly fit within section 3553(a). View "United States v. Guzman-Rendon" on Justia Law