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

After pleading guilty to one count of receiving child pornography, Defendant was sentenced to a 168–month term of imprisonment followed by a 15–year term of supervised release. During Defendant’s term of supervised release, the district court modified a number of the special conditions imposed. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court’s jurisdiction to modify his supervised release conditions and contesting the substantive reasonableness of the conditions imposed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. Section 3583(e)(2) to modify conditions of supervised release and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning these conditions. The court explained that a district court cannot modify an unlawful condition under Section 3583(e)(2) if the illegality of that condition is the basis for modification, regardless of whether it was the defendant or government who brought the motion challenging the conditions. In the case at hand, however, Defendant’s appeal fails because the government did not move for modification solely on the basis of illegality, and the district court did not premise its ruling on the illegality of the special condition.   Next, Defendant contended that even if the district court’s ruling was not based on the illegality of a condition, the district court still lacked authority to modify his conditions of supervised release because there was not a “change in circumstance” that precipitated the modification nor was there a “compelling cause” for the modification. The court explained that it has found no cases requiring a “change in circumstance” or “compelling cause” to modify a condition of supervised release. View "USA v. Caillier" on Justia Law

Defendant, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was charged with importation of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 952(a). Her lawyer told her that if she pleaded guilty, it was “very likely” that she would be deported. She nonetheless entered the plea. Defendant then learned that her offense did not just possibly make her deportable, it automatically did so. She then moved to withdraw her plea, alleging that if she had known the full scope of the immigration consequences of her plea, she would not have entered it. The district court denied Defendant’s motion and sentenced her. Defendant appealed. At issue is whether a lawyer’s warning of “very likely” deportation satisfies the right to effective assistance of counsel.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that when defense counsel tells an alien client that a conviction will have serious immigration consequences, including “very likely” deportation, that defendant has received sufficient advice to make an informed plea decision, as required by the Sixth Amendment. The court explained that there is some ambiguity about what specific words Defendant’s lawyer used when explaining to her the immigration consequences of the plea. But the district court’s factual finding—which is reviewed only for clear error—suggests the following bottom line: Defendant’s lawyer put her on notice of the risk of serious immigration consequences, including deportation. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to withdraw her plea. View "USA v. Armendariz" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for knowingly possessing “material”— a cell phone—that contained child pornography. Even though the phone had thousands of such images, the indictment specifically described only four. Defendant pleaded guilty under a plea agreement. After sentencing, the district court ordered Defendant to pay restitution to several individual victims whose likenesses appeared in some images from Defendant’s phone. But these images were among those that the indictment did not specifically describe. Defendant argued that restitution is available only to victims who appeared in the four images specified in the indictment.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the indictment charged Defendant with a crime, but Defendant has identified no rule or statute that would require the indictment to also include descriptions of all the images or all the victims. The court explained that, on the contrary, the indictment tracks the statute’s language: “Specifically, Defendant possessed one Motorola Moto G Stylus android cellular phone that contained the following described image files visually depicting a prepubescent minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct . . . .” The object of the possession in the indictment is clearly the “Motorola Moto G Stylus,” not any of the images. The court wrote that the statute criminalizes possession of material containing child pornography. The phone was that “material,” no matter whether it contained one image or twenty thousand. Thus, the court concluded that there was no error with the district court’s finding and amount of restitution. View "USA v. Bopp" on Justia Law

Louisiana challenged the district court’s grant of habeas relief to an inmate who had been convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 2009. The district court held that the ineffective assistance of trial counsel prejudiced the defense. The State argued that the district court applied the incorrect standard of review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and that the district court improperly granted habeas relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that in reviewing an ineffectiveness claim, the court must weigh the evidence that was unaffected by the alleged error, along with the evidence that was affected by the error and the degree to which it was affected, and then assess whether the petitioner “has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors.”   Here, the State argued that because a jury might have found that Petitioner shot at law enforcement vehicles during the police chase, it would have imputed specific intent to kill the victim. The court wrote that it agreed with Petitioner that this theory is not supported by Louisiana law. Further, the court explained that the three key pieces of evidence, at the very least, create a “reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt.” Accordingly, the court concluded that Petitioner has carried his burden of proving there is a reasonable probability that his convictions and death sentence were prejudiced as a result of his counsel’s deficient performance. View "Neal v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress on two grounds: (1) that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop of his vehicle, and (2) that Defendant did not voluntarily consent to the search of his home and truck during the stop. Defendant also appealed his sentencing, arguing that the district court erred in relying on the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) to sentence him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) rather than any evidence required by Shepard v. United States 544 U.S. 13 (2005).The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress but reversed the district court’s application of the ACCA, vacated his sentence, and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that the Shepard-documents do not conclusively show that Defendant’s predicate offenses occurred on three separate occasions. Thus, the district court’s error affected a substantial right, and the court wrote that it must vacate the sentence. Further, given the fact that Wooden was decided after the notice of appeal was filed, the court remanded the case for a full resentencing, at which time the Government may introduce any additional Shepard evidence into the record. View "USA v. Alkheqani" on Justia Law

Defendant a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of this 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 motion alleging breach of his plea agreement based on serious allegations against Assistant U.S. Attorneys and ineffective assistance of counsel.   The Fifth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s application of the procedural bar to the breach-of-plea agreement claim and reversed and remanded but affirmed its disposition of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court explained that further factfinding is necessary to decide whether Defendant was prejudiced. To show prejudice, “the petition must show ‘not merely that the errors . . . created a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions.’” Here, the court explained that the government argues that Defendant cannot establish prejudice because the Louisiana USAO did not breach the plea agreement and because Defendant would have pled guilty even if he knew of the second indictment. The court reasoned that the district court is in the best position to determine the veracity of these claims. But the district court grounded its ruling on the cause and never addressed the arguments regarding prejudice. Therefore, the court remanded to the district court with instructions to determine (1) whether Defendant or his counsel knew or should have known of the Texas indictment before Defendant’s sentencing and (2), if not, whether Defendant was prejudiced. View "USA v. Cuff" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of thirteen financial crimes. Defendant filed a series of pro se motions for compassionate release. This appeal arises from Defendant's third such motion. Defendant asked to be released based on the dangers posed by the pandemic, his close confinement with other prisoners, his age, and his preexisting heart condition. He also states that his wire fraud conviction was wrongful because it was predicated on a purely intrastate wire transmission and that a wrongful conviction is an extraordinary and compelling reason justifying relief. The motion was denied in a brief order shortly after being filed.   The Fifth Circuit ordered a limited remand for the district court to explain its reasons. The court explained that the district court’s order does not tell us that the court based its decision on Section 3553(a) factors. It states only that the court “considered Defendant’s motion and the applicable law” and determined that the motion should be denied. The court explained that, therefore, it has no reliable indication of the reason for the court’s decision to deny relief. View "USA v. Stanford" on Justia Law

Prisoner, DefendanDefendant, a prisoner, brought an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255. His claims rest on the argument that his sentence for the latter offense should have been adjusted to reflect the 13 months he had already spent in prison for his first conviction. Defendant brought this 2255 petition in the Northern District of Texas, faulting his trial counsel for failing to adequately advocate for “back time” at sentencing and faulting his appellate counsel for not raising the issue on appeal. The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied. The district judge (the same judge who sentenced Defendant in the Northern District) adopted the recommendation, dismissed the claims, and denied a certificate of appealability.   The Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability and affirmed. The court explained that it is true that the Sentencing Guidelines call for credit for time served if there are two related offenses. Both parties agree the offenses are related here. Yet the Guidelines are not obligatory, and the judge in the Northern District of Texas instead sentenced Defendant under U.S.S.G. Section 5G1.3(d). Thus, Defendant’s sentences were treated as concurrent from the day of the second sentencing but did not account for the 13 months of back time. None of this means that Defendant’s lawyers were constitutionally deficient. Defendant’s trial counsel argued for the application of U.S.S.G. Section 5G1.3(b) in a memorandum and noted the argument in open court; he was not constitutionally obliged to do more. Defendant’s appellate counsel was not deficient for failing to raise the issue because the district court did not contravene any binding case law. View "USA v. Massey" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty, with a plea agreement, to one count of misprision of a felony, to wit: wire fraud. Because of the substantial assistance that he provided the government, the district court sentenced him below the guidelines range to six months of imprisonment. The district court also ordered Defendant to pay $40,254,297.72 in restitution, jointly and severally, with other defendants, pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”). Defendant appealed the district court’s restitution order. The government moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Defendant’s appeal waiver; that motion was carried with the case, and the case was fully briefed on the merits.   The Fifth Circuit vacated the restitution order and remanded for the district court to conduct further fact-finding and to adjust the award if necessary. The court held that Defendant’s appeal fits within an exception to his appeal waiver. The court explained that Defendant’s argument that the district court awarded restitution for losses caused by conduct not encompassed by his offense of conviction or by conduct specified in his guilty plea and for losses that predate his involvement with RDAG is a statutory-maximum challenge. Further, the court left it to the district court on remand to make any additional factual findings necessary to determine the amount of restitution statutorily authorized by the MVRA and to enter a new restitution order in that amount. View "USA v. Reinhart" on Justia Law

Defendant’s sentence was enhanced by enhancement provisions in the Armed Career Criminal Act. Powell appeals, arguing that following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Taylor, a conviction for Texas robbery-by-threat is no longer a predicate offense under that act. Defendant argued that Garrett cannot stand post-Taylor.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the elements cause. Taylor thus expressly addresses offenses that criminalize attempts that may be undertaken without a use or threat of force. The court explained that in other words, Taylor does not reach the crime at issue here and cannot be said to clearly overturn Garrett. Thus, Taylor does not undermine or contravene Garrett’s conclusion that Texas robbery-by-threat constitutes a violent felony. View "USA v. Powell" on Justia Law