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

After pleading guilty, Defendant was convicted of one count of coercion and enticement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), and one count of sexual exploitation of children, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and (e). Defendant's presentence investigation report (“PSR”) recommended a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(2)(A), because the offense “involved the commission of a sexual act or sexual contact” based on video evidence that Defendant masturbated on video with a minor. The court sentenced Defendant accordingly, and Defendant appealed.On appeal,. Defendant challenged the district court's application of the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(2)(A). Agreeing with the four other circuits that have weighed in on the issue, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that an act of masturbation constitutes "sexual contact" under 18 U.S.C. 2246(3). View "USA v. Butler" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of depriving two persons of their constitutional rights under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 242. The district court sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of 12 and 360 months of imprisonment and ordered Defendant to pay $10,000 in restitution to one of the victims. Defendant appealed, arguing that the government failed to disclose impeachment evidence in violation of the Brady rule, and he sought a new trial on that basis.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the withheld evidence was not material. The court explained that there is no reasonable probability that if the government had disclosed the evidence of the victim’s arrest and pending criminal case, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Further, the court wrote that Defendant’s theory of how he would have used evidence of the victim’s arrest and pending criminal case to impeach the victim rests on speculation. Defendant does not point to any evidence that federal prosecutors could have influenced the Texas prosecutor’s conduct before the grand jury or the grand jury’s findings.   Moreover, the court concluded that Defendant is incorrect in sentencing him the district court “drew an adverse inference” from his silence that “may have resulted in added imprisonment.” Defendant does not point to any specific foundation in the record for his claim that the district court relied on his lack of remorse in determining his sentence. Any inferences the district court drew from Defendant’s refusal to comment at the sentencing hearing did not adversely impact his sentence and did not burden his Fifth Amendment privilege. View "USA v. Sepulveda" on Justia Law

A Texas jury convicted Defendant of murder and sentenced him to death. After his direct appeal and habeas petitions were both denied in state court, Defendant raised 31 claims in a federal habeas petition. The district court denied all his claims and also denied a certificate of appealability (COA). Defendant asked the Fifth Circuit to issue a COA on eight of those claims, which he presents as posing five distinct legal issues.   The Fifth Circuit denied Defendant a COA on all of his claims. The court first found that it is beyond debate that Defendant’s claim would still be unexhausted for failing to fairly present the Confrontation Clause claim to the state habeas court. Further, the court explained that the state court concluded that Defendant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to use a peremptory strike against these jurors. Defendant has not identified any clearly established federal law that would allow reasonable jurists to debate this conclusion. Moreover, the court wrote that Defendant failed to rebut the prosecution’s fifth stated reason for striking a juror at all. Therefore, the district court’s rejection of Defendant’s Batson claim is not debatable. Next, the court found that the habeas court conducted an extensive argument-by-argument review of Defendant’s comparative juror analysis argument. It considered each argument that Defendant said should have been raised. It found that each of these arguments was meritless and that, as a result, Defendant’s appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise them. View "Harper v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

In 2019, after a nine-day jury trial, Defendants C.M. and D.P. were convicted on several counts related to their involvement in a drug trafficking organization. On appeal, C.M. challenged only her kidnapping conviction, while D.P. raised several challenges to each of his convictions.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that it was not an error for the district court to instruct the jury that the offender’s own interstate or foreign travel could supply the jurisdictional hook. However, in instructing the jury, the district court did not clarify that the offender’s travel must be “in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense.” Nonetheless, the court found that this error does not warrant a plain error reversal. Further, the court found that the same evidence supporting D.P.’s conspiracy conviction supports his possession conviction on an aiding and abetting theory of liability. From that evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that, by calling in the car so that the sham cocaine could be seized and the real drugs successfully sold, D.P. associated and participated in the drug trafficking venture in a way calculated to bring about its success. Moreover, here, D.P.’s arguments as to his motion for a new trial are essentially the same as those raised in his sufficiency challenge. Thus, the court found the evidence sufficient to support each of his convictions. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying D.P.’s motion for a new trial. View "USA v. Polanco" on Justia Law

In 2019, after a nine-day jury trial, Defendants C.M. and D.P. were convicted on several counts related to their involvement in a drug trafficking organization. On appeal, C.M. challenged only her kidnapping conviction, while D.P. raised several challenges to each of his convictions.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that it was not an error for the district court to instruct the jury that the offender’s own interstate or foreign travel could supply the jurisdictional hook. However, in instructing the jury, the district court did not clarify that the offender’s travel must be “in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense.” Nonetheless, the court found that this error does not warrant a plain error reversal. Further, the court found that the same evidence supporting D.P.’s conspiracy conviction supports his possession conviction on an aiding and abetting theory of liability. From that evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that, by calling in the car so that the sham cocaine could be seized and the real drugs successfully sold, D.P. associated and participated in the drug trafficking venture in a way calculated to bring about its success. Moreover, here, D.P.’s arguments as to his motion for a new trial are essentially the same as those raised in his sufficiency challenge. Thus, the court found the evidence sufficient to support each of his convictions. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying D.P.’s motion for a new trial. View "USA v. Meyer" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs were a class of people who had been charged with misdemeanor and felony crimes in Dallas County and who were allegedly unconstitutionally incarcerated pretrial solely because they were financially unable to post required bail. While the case was arguably moot, the Fifth Circuit determined it had the discretion to determine whether a federal court should have proceeded to the merits of plaintiffs’ bail “reform” lawsuit in the first place.The court explained that Younger requires federal court abstention when three criteria are met: “(1) the federal proceeding would interfere with an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the state has an important interest in regulating the subject matter of the claim; and (3) the plaintiff has an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges. Finding all three prongs of Younger were met, the court overruled ODonnell I, ODonnell v. Harris Cnty., 882F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2018), holding against abstention in this matter. As an alternate holding, the court ultimately determined that the plaintiffs' case was moot. View "Daves v. Dallas County" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of one drug conspiracy count for each predicate drug. It also convicted Defendant of two additional counts for possession with intent to distribute hydrocodone and carisoprodol. The district court sentenced him to 151 months imprisonment, the low end of the applicable Guidelines range. On direct appeal, Defendant argued that errors in the district court’s jury instructions require his retrial. In the alternative, Defendant argued that the district court miscalculated his Sentencing Guidelines offense level.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that even if idiosyncratic portions of the jury charge lacked clarity on Section 841(a)’s mens rea requirement, the adequate Section 846 mens rea instruction filled any gap by clearly requiring that the jury find that Defendant have understood the illegitimate nature of his conduct. Further, any error in Section 841(a) instruction was harmless. Moreover, the court wrote that here, the trial court’s remarks explained relevant, available inferences in conditional language but did not dictate that the jury reach any specific outcome. The trial court also emphasized to the jury that they should “not assume from anything I may have done or said during the trial that I have any opinion” concerning the case and that the jury must “arrive at your own verdict.” The court found that a review of the remainder of the trial record reveals no evidence of bias on the part of the trial judge. View "USA v. Ajayi" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted after a bench trial of possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, Defendant contended that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that the Sergeant had reasonable suspicion that Defendant was engaged in criminal activity in the alley. First, Defendant’s location and timing provide a strong foundation for finding reasonable suspicion. Second, Defendant’s emergence and subsequent actions similarly give rise to reasonable suspicion. Third, Defendant’s inconsistent and nonsensical answers to the Sergeant’s questions gave rise to reasonable suspicion. Further, the court explained that even if the Sergeant and officer realized in the course of the seizure that Defendant was not the individual in the photograph, there remained numerous articulable and suspicious facts supporting a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing sufficient to extend the seizure, namely Defendant’s actions and statements before the photograph’s arrival as well as his suspicious answers in response to questions generated by the picture itself. View "USA v. Roper" on Justia Law

Defendant, a criminal noncitizen with a burglary conviction and two subsequent illegal-reentry convictions, was convicted of illegal reentry for a third time. The district court characterized his burglary conviction as an aggravated felony. The district court also characterized his two prior illegal-reentry convictions as aggravated felonies under a statutory provision stating that illegal reentry is itself an aggravated felony when committed by someone previously deported following an aggravated felony conviction. The designation “aggravated felony” is significant because it subjects the alien to a maximum prison sentence of 20 years. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court mischaracterized his past offenses because, under an intervening Supreme Court case, his predicate burglary conviction no longer qualifies as an aggravated felony. He insists the district court erred in sentencing him under Section 1326(b)(2).   The Fifth Circuit reformed the judgment to reflect that Defendant was convicted and sentenced under Section 1326(b)(2) and affirmed the judgment as reformed. The court explained that Defendant was correctly sentenced under Section 1326(b)(2) because he was previously removed “subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony.” Defendant’s first illegal reentry, for which he was sentenced under Section 1326(b)(2), was an aggravated felony under Section 1101(a)(43)(O). View "USA v. Huerta-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant, a federal prisoner, appealed the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(1). Defendant offered four reasons for his Section 3582(c)(1) motion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that Defendant’s first three arguments are not cognizable bases for compassionate release and the fourth does not have merit.   Defendant argued that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective and that the Government breached his plea agreement. But because these claims are cognizable under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, they are not cognizable under 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c). Second, Defendant argued that he should get a sentence reduction because the First Step Act reduced the statutory minimums applicable to his offenses. But Congress did not make those reductions retroactive. And a prisoner may not leverage non-retroactive changes in criminal law to support a compassionate release motion because such changes are neither extraordinary nor compelling. Third, Defendant briefly suggested that an amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines favors his early release. Defendant did not adequately present this argument to the district court, however, so it is forfeited   Defendant’s fourth and final argument is the only one that states a possibly cognizable basis for compassionate release—namely, that COVID-19 constitutes an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for his release. To support this argument, Defendant suggested that his prior COVID-19 infection and general ill health place him at greater risk from COVID-19 relative to the broader population. The court wrote it has repeatedly denied relief in cases where prisoners sought compassionate release due to fear of communicable disease, even when those prisoners were in poor health. View "USA v. McMaryion" on Justia Law