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

Defendant challenged the district court's denial of his request for an adjustment to a restitution order. Defendant claimed that the $1,400 stimulus payment he received under the American Rescue Plan was exempt from levy and that any payment would violate the Taking Clause.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's request to adjust his restitution order. In so holding, the court held that the stimulus payment does not meet any exception and that he was required to apply the complete payment towards any restitution he owed. View "USA v. Stark" on Justia Law

Defendant was stopped by Border Patrol near Laredo, Texas, while smuggling 84 illegal aliens in a trailer. A jury convicted him for trafficking aliens. On appeal, Defendant argued the jury had insufficient evidence.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant argued that the Government failed to prove that he knew illegal aliens were in his truck, that he agreed with anyone to transport illegal aliens, or that he sought to further their unlawful presence in the United States. But viewing the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict—and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the verdict— Defendant doesn’t come close to meeting the doubly deferential plain-error sufficiency burden.   Further at Defendant’s trial, the Government presented a mountain of evidence indicating that Yusuf knew he was hauling illegal aliens. Defendant was the sole driver and occupant of the truck in the trailer of which 84 illegal aliens were discovered; that alone is probative of knowledge. The jury also heard abundant evidence that Defendant’s story lacked credibility. View "USA v. Yusuf" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his jury trial conviction for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he possessed a firearm. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that although the Government presented no direct evidence of possession, a reasonable jury could conclude that Freeman possessed the firearm. The jury saw videos of Defendant running from the police—first in his car and then on foot. And it heard testimony that suspects who run often have narcotics or weapons in their possession. The Government also presented evidence that police recovered the gun in a field about twenty feet from Defendant’s flight path. The jury heard testimony that a grown man could easily have thrown the two- or three-pound gun this distance. View "USA v. Freeman" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 45-year sentence for attempting to produce child pornography. The district court enhanced his sentence based on Defendant’s prior aggravated sexual assault of a child under Texas law. Defendant contested the enhancement because, while the Texas crime can be committed against minors up to 16 years old, he claims the federal predicate offense only includes victims younger than 16. Defendant’s basic argument is this: because the Texas statute applies to 16-year-old victims, it criminalizes more conduct than Section 2251(e), which he claims applies only to 15- year-old victims.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the federal enhancement statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. Section 2251(e), specifically allows increased sentences for state sex crimes against minors up to 17 years old. See 18 U.S.C. Section 2256(1). The court rejected Defendant’s argument explaining Section 2251(e) is located in Chapter 110 of Title 18. “For the purposes of [Chapter 110],” the term “‘minor’ means any person under the age of eighteen years.” Section 2256(1). So, it is not true that the Texas statute “sweeps more broadly” than Section 2251(e). To the contrary, it sweeps more narrowly. The Texas crime applies to victims who are 16 years old and younger, whereas the predicate federal offense extends to 17-year-old victims. Consequently, Defendant’s Texas conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child qualifies as an enhancing offense under Section 2251(e). View "USA v. Grzywinski" on Justia Law

An individual and an advocacy group seek to appeal from the denial of a motion to quash two grand jury subpoenas and an order compelling compliance with one of them. There is no jurisdiction for appeals challenging a grand jury subpoena for production of documents unless (1) the appellant has been held in contempt, or (2) a client-intervenor asserts that documents in the possession of a subpoenaed, disinterested third party are protected by attorney-client privilege.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal explaining that neither exception applied. The court explained that the subpoenaed documents are in the hands of Appellants. They are interested third parties in that they are being investigated for witness tampering. They have a direct and personal interest in suppressing the documents that could potentially corroborate the witness tampering accusation. Consequently, Appellants obviously have “a sufficient stake in the proceeding to risk contempt by refusing compliance.” Accordingly, the court wrote it lacks jurisdiction over the appeal, and Appellants must either comply with the subpoena or be held in contempt to seek the court’s review. View "In re: Grand Jury Subpoena" on Justia Law

Two members of a group of criminals whose business model was to steal drugs and money from other criminals were jointly tried. The multiple counts in the indictment charged the defendants with offenses involving drugs, firearms, carjackings, and robbery. Both Defendants were convicted after a jury trial. Among the many appellate issues are the propriety of introducing certain evidence gathered from cell phones, possible errors in the description of certain offenses in the indictment and jury instructions, and whether the judge improperly made fact findings about drug quantities.   The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the judgment of conviction on Counts Six and Eight for resentencing, reversed the judgment of conviction on Count Seventeen and remanded for entry of a judgment of acquittal, and affirmed in all other respects. In regards to counts Six and Eight, the court explained that though the two counts allege separate incidents on different dates, multiple firearm counts cannot be predicated on the same conspiracy: “imposing consecutive sentences in these circumstances is inconsistent with the rule in this circuit.” The drug conspiracy was the only predicate offense for each of these counts. The Government stated and the court agreed, the convictions on those two counts must be vacated and, on remand, the Government will be required to elect which count to dismiss. View "USA v. Montemayor" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for habeas relief for his conviction for rape. Petitioner filed a habeas petition in federal district court, raising thirteen claims. The district court denied Petitioner’s petition but granted Petitioner a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on all thirteen claims. Petitioner timely appealed. Petitioner claimed that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise an Ake claim on direct appeal. Second, Petitioner raised an Ake claim and argues that the claim is not procedurally barred because his appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness establishes cause and prejudice. Third, Petitioner claimed that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Petitioner’s habeas petition, holding that Petitioner unquestionably raped a 17-year-old girl. Thus, AEDPA and “law and justice” both require denying his request for federal habeas relief. Petitioner presented substantively identical insanity defenses at all three of his trials. At two of his trials, Petitioner presented an expert witness to support his defense. Both juries flatly rejected that Petitioner was insane. And one of the trials involved an incident contemporaneous with the rape, and the same expert Petitioner wanted for the rape trial testified at the assault trial. The State also presented at all three trials two experts who opined that Petitioner was sane. There is thus no colorable reason to think that Petitioner is insane, much less that he is factually innocent. View "Crawford v. Cain, et al" on Justia Law

Following a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of smuggling bulk cash in violation of 31 U.S.C. Section 5332. He was sentenced to sixteen months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a stop and search at the border as he was leaving the United States and attempting to enter Mexico.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the border-search exception allows “routine” searches and seizures without individualized suspicion or probable cause. Here, Appellant first argued that the canine sniff of his person required reasonable suspicion. The court wrote it did not because the canine sniff here was a routine border search and therefore did not require individualized suspicion. Appellant’s detention did not exceed the bounds of routine border searches and therefore did not require reasonable suspicion. Finally, the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s suppression motion View "USA v. Tenorio" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after a felony conviction and was sentenced under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(e), the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), to a mandatory minimum of 180 months in prison. He appealed, arguing that his prior Mississippi convictions for burglary do not qualify as crimes of violence under the ACCA and that the convictions, which occurred when he was a minor, are invalid because the juvenile court never properly transferred jurisdiction to the circuit court. The Government disagreed. It also moved to dismiss based on a waiver of appeal in Defendant’s plea agreement.   The Fifth Circuit concluded that Defendant’s arguments are without merit. Thus, the court pretermitted the waiver issue. The court also declined to consider an argument Defendant first raised in his reply brief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and denied the Government’s motion to dismiss. View "USA v. Thompson" on Justia Law

In 1998, Defendant pleaded guilty of attempted sexual assault of a minor in Colorado. In 2013, Defendant moved to Texas. In 2019, law enforcement discovered that Defendant was not registered as a sex offender in Texas and arrested him. Defendant pleaded guilty of failing to register as required by the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), a crime under 18 U.S.C. Section 2250(a). He completed his term of imprisonment but violated the terms of his supervised release twice and is serving an 11-month revocation sentence. Defendant claims that his guilty plea for failing to register as a sex offender was insufficient as a matter of law because in 2019 he did not have an obligation to register as a sex offender.   The Fifth Circuit agreed with Defendant and vacated the conviction. The court explained that it is hard to deny that Defendant would not have pleaded guilty if he had correctly understood the tier of his predicate sex offense. Similarly, the district court would likely not have accepted the guilty plea if it had known Defendant had failed to satisfy the first element of the crime Further, affirming Defendant’s conviction would undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings by permitting the continued punishment of a man who is not guilty of the crime charged. View "USA v. Navarro" on Justia Law