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

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of Hobbs Act robbery. As part of Defendant’s sentence, and over his objection, the district court ordered Defendant to pay $5,000 in restitution to Parks Food Mart, the store he robbed. Defendant appealed this order of restitution on two grounds: first, that the district court erred in imposing restitution to a business entity and second, that the district court erred by ordering restitution in the amount of $5,000.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed but modified the amount of restitution to $3,500. The court explained that MVRA directs the district court to “reimburse the victim for lost income . . . and other expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense.” Here, Parks Food Mart was closed for approximately 6 hours on a Monday, from 6:15 p.m. to midnight, as law enforcement investigated the robbery. In the original PSR, the probation officer reported only that the business had suffered “$4,000 from missed earnings while being closed for investigation.” The court explained that it understands that sales are variable and there may have been reason for Parks Food Mart, in stating that the store closure resulted in $4,000 in lost earnings, to expect sales on the higher end the day of the robbery. At the same time, however, the court recognized that the store closure only impacted part of the day. Given these competing tensions and the lack of any other documentation as to the store’s losses, the court found the $3,500 figure to be a better-supported estimate of lost sales. View "USA v. Richardson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1), and he was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment. His sentence reflected the district court’s imposition of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), which is triggered when a Section 922(g) offender has three prior convictions for “violent felonies” or “serious drug offenses” that were “committed on occasions different from one another.” Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the ACCA enhancement violated his constitutional rights because the facts establishing that he committed his previous violent felonies on different occasions were not charged in the indictment and either admitted by him or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that the parties argue that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wooden v. United States instructs that the ACCA enhancement here was a constitutional error.1 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022). But in Wooden, the Court explicitly declined to address the issue that Defendant raised. Wooden is, therefore, “not directly on point” and thus does not “alter the binding nature” of Davis and White. View "USA v. Valencia" on Justia Law

Defendant and his co-defendant entered a CVS pharmacy through the store’s front doors to commit an armed robbery. When police officers arrived, they encountered Defendant and Parson attempting to exit the CVS. Defendant and co-Defendant retreated into the store while the officers sought cover outside the front door and in the parking lot. Defendant and co-Defendant then ran out of the store as they shot at the police officers. One police officer sustained a gunshot wound to the shoulder area. Co-Defendant sustained multiple gunshot wounds and was arrested immediately following the robbery. Defendant appealed the four-level sentencing enhancement for abduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. Section 2B3.1(b)(4)(A).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Defendant contended that the district court erred in applying the abduction sentencing enhancement for three reasons. First, Defendant argued that he “did not force the victim to ‘accompany’ him anywhere” and that forcing the cashier from the cashier area to the restroom “does not qualify as the type of ‘forced accompaniment’ required by the abduction enhancement.” The court disagreed. Defendant pointed a gun at the cashier and forced him to walk with Defendant from the cashier area to the restroom, where Defendant zip-tied the cashier’s hands. Thus, Defendant forced the cashier to accompany him.   Second, Defendant challenged the district court’s determination that the “different location” requirement of Section 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) was satisfied when he moved the cashier to the bathroom. Here, Defendant forced the cashier from the cashier’s area at the front of the store to the restroom. Accordingly, the different location requirement was also satisfied. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing the abduction enhancement. View "USA v. Sansbury" on Justia Law

The district court initially sentenced Defendant to a twenty-year term of imprisonment followed by a five-year term of supervised release (“SR”). Later, however, the court vacated that sentence and imposed ten years in prison and three years of SR. Defendant fully served that reduced prison term and began his SR. But because he violated the conditions of SR, the district court revoked it and imposed additional terms of imprisonment and SR. After serving a new prison term and beginning the new term of SR, Defendant again violated the conditions, so the court revoked SR a second time.   The Fifth Circuit vacated Defendant’s revocation judgments in consideration of the court’s earlier vacatur of his ten-year sentence. The court explained that the statutory framework and applicable precedent indicate that vacatur is warranted here. Defendant’s revocation judgments were part of his ten-year sentence. That sentence was vacated. The revocation judgments are therefore legally void and should be vacated as well. View "USA v. Lipscomb" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by a Texas court in 1991. The United States Supreme Court ordered Petitioner resentenced in 2007. After he was sentenced to death a second time, Petitioner exhausted his state remedies and then petitioned for federal habeas relief. The district court denied his petition and did not certify any questions for appellate review. Petitioner sought a certificate of appealability (“COA”).   The Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner’s application for a COA. The court explained that the district court found the state court’s rejection of prejudice to be reasonable under Strickland, especially considering the jury’s opportunity to assess Petitioner’s credibility in light of the eyewitness description of the crime’s brutality. No reasonable jurist could find the district court’s assessment debatable or wrong. Further, the court reasoned that reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s conclusion that, as evidenced in extremely thorough opinions by the state court and magistrate judge, the state court reasonably applied Strickland in holding that trial counsel was not ineffective in preparing and presenting a mitigation defense. View "Brewer v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Appellants are both citizens of Venezuela. They were both admitted to the United States as nonimmigrant visitors and remained in the United States beyond the expiration of their authorization to remain. Appellants filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 following their criminal convictions. The district courts granted both Petitions. However, Appellants challenged the denial of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that since “a habeas corpus proceeding is neither a wholly criminal nor a wholly civil action, but rather a hybrid action that is unique, a category unto itself,” it is not purely a civil action, and the EAJA does not authorize attorney’s fees for successful 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 motions. Accordingly, the court wrote that it does not need to reach the issue of whether the Government was substantially justified in its actions. View "Castro Balza v. Garland" on Justia Law

Appellants are both citizens of Venezuela. They were both admitted to the United States as nonimmigrant visitors and remained in the United States beyond the expiration of their authorization to remain. Appellants filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 following their criminal convictions. The district courts granted both Petitions. However, Appellants challenged the denial of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that since “a habeas corpus proceeding is neither a wholly criminal nor a wholly civil action, but rather a hybrid action that is unique, a category unto itself,” it is not purely a civil action, and the EAJA does not authorize attorney’s fees for successful 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 motions. Accordingly, the court wrote that it does not need to reach the issue of whether the Government was substantially justified in its actions. View "Gomez Barco v. Witte" on Justia Law

Defendant was a local law-enforcement agent who worked as a taskforce officer with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Defendant was charged with stealing money and property from arrestees, as well as destroying evidence of those activities. A jury found Defendant guilty on all counts. Following the verdict, Defendant asserted that one of the jurors (“Juror”) had failed to disclose his acquaintance with Defendant and Defendant’s wife, and Defendant moved for a new trial on the basis of juror bias. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to twenty-seven months of imprisonment. Defendant argued that the Juror’s prior romantic relationship with Defendant’s wife necessitated, at a minimum, a questioning before the court.” Defendant asserted that such questioning would reveal that the Juror was actually biased, entitling Defendant to a new trial.   The Fifth Circuit remanded for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the question of juror bias. The court explained that although not every claim of actual bias on behalf of a juror militates a hearing, the district court here abused its discretion by ruling on the motion for a new trial without holding an evidentiary hearing. Defendant has established that the Juror and Defendant’s wife were friends in high school, that the Juror attended Defendant’s wedding, and that the Juror and Defendant’s wife communicated over social media up until Defendant was indicted. The Juror failed to reveal any of this information during voir dire. Accordingly, the court held that Defendant made a sufficient showing to entitle him to a hearing on his juror bias claim. View "USA v. Gemar" on Justia Law

Defendant and her boyfriend stole hundreds of firearms, eight silencers, a wedding ring, two tennis bracelets, earrings, and two other ringsfrom an elderly couple. Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of stolen firearms and was sentenced to 108 months’ incarceration and ordered her to pay restitution in the amount of $75,605.97. As a condition of the plea agreement, Defendant waived the right to appeal except as to a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum.Defendant appealed the court's restitution order. The Fifth Circuit held that Defendant raised a bona fide question as to whether the restitution ordered by the district court exceeds the victim’s loss or whether the Government failed to prove that Munoz proximately caused damages in that amount. Thus, she did not waive the right to bring these particular claims. However, on the merits, the court determined that Defendant's claims failed and affirmed her sentence and restitution order. View "USA v. Munoz" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged and convicted of various federal firearm and narcotics charges. He was sentenced under then-applicable mandatory minimum sentencing laws. However, after the imposition of his sentence, Congress passed the First Step Act. Defendant appealed, the court remanded based on an enhancement error.On remand, the district court resentenced Defendant, but only on the counts related to the enhancement error. Defendant appealed his resentencing, claiming that the district court erred in not applying or considering the impact of the First Step Act.The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence. The First Step Act was not “an intervening change in controlling authority" because it was passed and became effective prior to Defendant's initial appeal. View "USA v. Solorzano" on Justia Law