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

Petitioner is a native citizen of Mexico who received lawful permanent resident status in the United States in 2003. In 2014, Petitioner was convicted by way of a guilty plea of an Aggravated Robbery in Texas. Petitioner was then deemed removable by an Immigration Judge ("IJ"). The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed, finding that Petitioner had been convicted of an "aggravated felony."The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), an “alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.” Section 1101(a)(43) of title 8 provides a list of offenses that qualify as aggravated felonies, which includes felony theft crimes, felony crimes of violence and attempts to commit these offenses. Petitioner argued that “since the Texas definition of a robbery encompasses an attempt to commit theft, it cannot categorically be defined as a theft offense, as an actual taking or exercise of control over the property of another is not needed for purposes of a conviction.However, the court held that, for Petitioner's purposes, it didn't matter if he was convicted of attempted theft or aggravated theft. The court explained that Petitioner is ineligible for asylum because his conviction qualifies as a non-political felony crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 16(a). View "Rodriguez Gonzalez v. Garland" on Justia Law

A federal grand jury indicted Defendant for possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section. 922(g)(8). On appeal, Defendant renewed his constitutional challenge to Section 922(g)(8). Defendant again acknowledged that his argument was foreclosed, and a prior panel of the Fifth Circuit agreed. But after Bruen, the prior panel withdrew its opinion, ordered supplemental briefing, and ordered the clerk to expedite this case for oral argument before another panel of the court. Defendant now contends that Bruen overrules our precedent and that under Bruen, Section 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional.   The Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated Defendant’s conviction. The court explained that Section 922(g)(8) embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in society. Weighing those policy goals’ merits through the sort of means-end scrutiny the court’s prior precedent indulged. The court previously concluded that the societal benefits of Section 922(g)(8) outweighed its burden on Defendant’s Second Amendment rights. But Bruen forecloses any such analysis in favor of a historical analogical inquiry into the scope of the allowable burden on the Second Amendment right. Through that lens, the court concluded that Section 922(g)(8)’s ban on the possession of firearms is an “outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”  Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional, and Defendant’s conviction under that statute must be vacated View "USA v. Rahimi" on Justia Law

According to the indictment, Defendant, a citizen of Switzerland and a partner in a Swiss wealth-management firm, and co-Defendant, a citizen of Portugal and Switzerland and an employee of a different Swiss wealth-management firm (together, “Defendants”), engaged in an international bribery scheme wherein U.S.-based businesses paid bribes to Venezuelan officials for priority payment of invoices and other favorable treatment from Venezuela’s state-owned energy company. A grand jury returned a nineteen-count indictment charging Defendants with various offenses stemming from their alleged international bribery scheme. The district court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss.   The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded. The court held that the district court’s grant of Defendants’ motions to dismiss was improper because the indictment adequately conforms to minimal constitutional standards. Further, the indictment did not violate co-Defendant’s due process rights. Moreover, the court wrote the district court’s conclusion that Section 3292 failed to toll the statute of limitations is erroneous. The court explained that the totality of the circumstances indicates that a reasonable person in co-Defendant’s position would not have equated the restraint on his freedom of movement with formal arrest. View "USA v. Murta" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of transportation of child sexual abuse material. The district court sentenced Defendant to 240 months of imprisonment followed by lifetime supervision and ordered Defendant to pay a total of $61,500 in restitution to seven victims depicted in Defendant’s materials. On appeal, Defendant sought to vacate the order of restitution, contending that it was imposed in violation of the proximate-cause requirements described in Paroline v. United States. The Government moved to dismiss the appeal on the theory that it is waived by the appeal waiver in Defendant’s plea agreement.   The Fifth Circuit granted the motion to dismiss. The court explained that because it is clear that the district court considered the Paroline factors at sentencing and ordered restitution as authorized by Section 2259, the statutory-maximum exception does not apply. Nor did the district court merely rubber-stamp the conclusion. To the contrary, it gave meaningful consideration to whether the evidence showed that Defendant’s conduct proximately caused the victims’ loss. Accordingly, the appeal waiver in Defendant’s plea agreement bars this appeal. View "USA v. Alfred" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Petitioner admitted the factual allegations and conceded the charge of removability. Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied his application for all claims. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed the appeal. Petitioner petitioned for review in the Fifth Circuit, and he only preserved his cancellation of removal claim.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal and held that it lacked jurisdiction to review either decision. The court explained that Section 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement applies to claims alleging defects in the BIA proceedings that the BIA “never had a chance to consider” because they arise “only as a consequence of the Board’s error.” Moreover, “when a petitioner seeks to raise a claim not presented to the BIA and the claim is one that the BIA has adequate mechanisms to address and remedy, the petitioner must raise the issue in a motion to reopen prior to resorting to review by the courts.” Here, Petitioner failed to meet these requirements. He never presented his ultra vires claim to the BIA, even though he could have raised it in his motion to reconsider. Moreover, Petitioner seeks the exact relief the BIA could’ve awarded him on reconsideration—namely, a new decision by a board member serving an unexpired term. View "Ayala Chapa v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Hagens (Leah and Michael) were convicted by a jury of conspiring to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks. Each was sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, plus restitution. Both Hagens appealed, arguing that the district court erred in excluding evidence, refusing to instruct the jury on an affirmative defense, and imposing a sentencing enhancement and restitution.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Hagens' convictions and sentences. The court found that the excluded evidence, which consisted of witness testimony, was irrelevant and cumulative. Thus, the district court did not err in excluding it. Even if the exclusion of the evidence wasn't warranted, the court determined that any error below was harmless.The court also held that the Hagans failed to put sufficient evidence forward justifying their requested jury charge on the safe-harbor affirmative defense. Finally, the court rejected the Hagens' claim that the lower court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for the couple's "sophisticated money laundering scheme." The court explained that evidence suggested the Hagens manipulated their wire transfer payments to conceal the kickback scheme, which justified the enhancement. View "USA v. Hagen" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty without a plea agreement to being unlawfully present in the United States after removal. The district court sentenced Defendant within the Guidelines range to 27 months of imprisonment and imposed a three-year term of supervised release. The district court imposed a special condition of supervised release requiring that Defendant be surrendered to immigration officials for deportation proceedings after his release from confinement and that, if officials decline to take custody of Defendant, he immediately depart the United States and return to Mexico.   On appeal, Defendant argued that the judgment should be amended to exclude the “self-deport” condition because the district court lacked the authority to impose this condition under 18 U.S.C. Section 3583(d). The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment in part and remanded for the entry of a new written judgment without the special condition requiring that Defendant departs from the United States. The court held that here, the district court exceeded its authority by ordering Defendant to self-deport as one of his conditions of supervised release. View "USA v. Villanueva-Cardenas" on Justia Law

This appeal concerns an alleged international bribery scheme between U.S.-based businesses and Venezuelan officials. On Defendants’ motions, the district court dismissed all counts charged against them and suppressed statements made during an interview. The government timely appealed.   The Fifth Circuit reversed. First, the court held that because extraterritoriality concerns the merits of the case, not the court’s power to hear it, the district court erred in concluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over these counts. Further, Defendants’ contention that the indictment does not sufficiently allege that they are agents of a domestic concern does not lend itself to the conclusion that the indictment is inherently insufficient. Moreover, the term “agent” is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Defendants. Additionally, the court wrote that the allegations that Defendants engaged in conduct that occurred in part in the Southern District of Texas satisfy the money-laundering statute’s extraterritorial provision. The district court erred in concluding otherwise. Finally, the environment in which the agents questioned Defendant, wherein his attorney could safeguard against police coercion, does not present the same inherently coercive pressures as the station-house questioning at issue in Miranda. The district court’s order suppressing the statements, then, was erroneous. View "USA v. Murta" on Justia Law

Defendant brought a facial challenge to Section 922(g)(8). The district court and a prior panel upheld the statute, applying the Fifth Circuit’s pre-Bruen precedent. Defendant filed a petition for rehearing en banc; while the petition was pending, the Supreme Court decided Bruen. The prior panel withdrew its opinion and requested a supplemental briefing on the impact of that case on this one.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and vacated Defendant’s conviction. The court held that Bruen requires the court to re-evaluate its Second Amendment jurisprudence and that under Bruen, Section 922(g)(8) fails to pass constitutional muster. The court explained that the Government failed to demonstrate that Section 922(g)(8)’s restriction of the Second Amendment right fits within the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Government’s proffered analogues falter under one or both of the metrics the Supreme Court articulated in Bruen as the baseline for measuring “relevantly similar” analogues: “how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense.” As a result, Section 922(g)(8) falls outside the class of firearm regulations countenanced by the Second Amendment. View "USA v. Rahimi" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted in 2015 of possessing child pornography and sentenced to an 86-month term of imprisonment and six years of supervised release. In 2019, Defendant violated the conditions of his supervised release, and the district court sentenced him to fifteen more months of imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release. After starting his second term of supervised release, Defendant again violated its conditions. The district court revoked Defendant’s supervised release and sentenced him to eighteen more months of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that his constitutional rights were violated at his preliminary revocation hearing, that the district court erred in detaining him pending the final revocation hearing, and that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence upon revocation.   The Fifth Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court reasoned that because it is impossible to say how the district court would have sentenced Defendant if it had known that the Guidelines range was nine months total and that the total statutory maximum sentence was twenty-four months, not nine months per violation, the court cannot resolve whether the district court’s error affected Defendant’s prison sentence. The district court may have varied or departed upwards and imposed the same eighteen-month sentence or a longer one, up to the twenty-four-month statutory maximum. Or, as evinced by the district court’s desire to follow the Guidelines, the district court may have imposed a more modest upwards variance or departure than eighteen months. Thus, the district court’s misunderstanding of its authority to sentence Defendant was not harmless. View "USA v. Greer" on Justia Law