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

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

Defendant was indicted for illegally reentering the United States, a violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1326. He unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the indictment on equal protection grounds. After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the district court sentenced him to 30 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. On appeal, Defendant argues that Section 1326 violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection principles. As for his sentence, he asserts that the district court (1) failed to consider sentencing disparities, (2) improperly considered the timing of an appeal in sentencing him to three years of supervised release, and (3) failed to consider the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy on supervised release for deportable defendants.   The Fifth Circuit agreed that the district court abused its discretion by considering the appeal clock in determining the appropriate term of supervised release. Accordingly, the court vacated that part of Defendant’s sentence and remanded for reconsideration of the supervised-release term. The court otherwise affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence. The court found that the district court imposed three years of supervised release solely out of fear that a lower sentence would moot an appeal. The timing of an appeal is not a factor that courts are tasked with considering in imposing supervised release. Such a consideration is also irrelevant because Defendant could appeal his conviction even after his sentence ends. The district court abused its discretion by basing the term of supervised release on the irrelevant timing for an appeal. View "USA v. Barcenas-Rumualdo" on Justia Law

Defendant is a paraplegic 43-year-old whose right leg was also amputated after complications from the 2013 gunshot wound that left him paralyzed. At the time of his arrest in August 2018, police found Rollins septic and malnourished, lying in his bodily wastes, though with five firearms around him in reach. In September 2019, Defendant moved for pretrial release, alleging that his brother could care for him at home. In January 2022, Defendant moved for compassionate release under the First Step Act. In March 2022, the district court denied Defendant motion for compassionate release, though noting Defendant’s condition was “dire.”   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that although the district court assessed Defendant’s medical situation as “dire,” the court never affirmatively stated that it was an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. The court reasoned that the district court sufficiently stated its reasons for denying compassionate release and did not clearly err in assessing the evidence when weighing the Section 3553(a)sentencing factors. The court made specific factual findings adequately articulating the primary reason for the denial of relief. Further, the court noted that it is not the court’s place to question the reasonable judgment of the district court in assessing the Section 3353(a) factors. View "USA v. Rollins" on Justia Law

Defendant is serving a federal sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment for conspiring to possess and distribute methamphetamine and hydrocodone. Since July 2020, Defendant has filed three motions for compassionate release. The district court rejected Defendant’s first motion because he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and denied Defendant’s second motion on the merits on November 18, 2020. More than a year later, Defendant filed a third motion for compassionate release. The district court denied the third motion “for the same reasons stated in” its November 18, 2020 order. Defendant now appeals the district court’s order denying his third motion.   The Fifth Circuit the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for compassionate release and remanded for reconsideration. The court explained that while Defendant’s s third compassionate-release motion may have little chance of success, judges have an obligation to say enough that the public can be confident that cases are decided in a reasoned way. Here, since the district court’s original order did not explain how it balanced the Section 3553(a) factors or its specific factual conclusions as to any of those factors, it is impossible to tell how the district court would have considered this new information. View "USA v. Handlon" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of numerous wire fraud and money-laundering charges arising from a fraudulent scheme to cause the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay over $71 million in GI-Bill funding to his trade school. Defendant raised several challenges to his convictions and his sentence.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed in nearly all respects, except that it vacated the forfeiture order and remanded it for further proceedings. The court held that Defendant fails to show the evidence was insufficient to allow a rational jury to convict him on the money-laundering counts. Further, the court concluded that conclude that the indictment was not faulty and the district court did not err in declining to order a bill of particulars.   Moreover, the court explained that illegally provided services that could have “hypothetically” been provided in a “legal manner”—like Defendant’s operation of the school—implicate the second definition of proceeds under Section 981(a)(2)(B), under which a defendant may deduct “the direct costs incurred in providing the goods or services.” The focus of any Section 981(a)(2) analysis is the underlying criminal conduct, not the crime itself.   That subsection further provides that Defendant “shall have the burden of proof with respect to the issue of direct costs” and also that those costs “shall not include any part of the overhead expenses of the entity providing the goods and services, or any part of the income taxes paid by the entity.” Therefore the court remanded for determining whether Defendant can prove any offset under the terms of Section 981(a)(2)(B). View "USA v. Davis" on Justia Law