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

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and his state habeas petition was also unsuccessful. Through state habeas counsel, Petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of counsel, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3599(a)(2), to assist him in preparing a petition for federal habeas relief. Petitioner identified specific attorneys he wanted to represent him. The district court granted Petitioner's motion for counsel, but appointed an attorney other than those requested by Petitioner. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion under Sec. 3599(a)(2), seeking to substitute his court-appoitned counsel. The district court rejected Petitioner's request, holding he had not offered a sufficient basis for substituting counsel because the court-appointed conflict-free counsel was competent to handle death-penalty matters. Petitioner appealed the court's interlocutory order.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The court noted that it routinely reviews challenges to the denial of a motion to substitute counsel on appeal from a final judgment. Thus, the judgment petitioner challenged did not trigger the court's jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine. View "Tracy v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

In this sentencing appeal following a child pornography conviction, Appellant asked the Fifth Circuit to disturb the district court’s revocation judgment, claiming the judge (1) relied on unsworn statements by the prosecutor, and (2) announced conditions of supervised release that conflicted with the written judgment.The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the record belies both claims. For one, ample evidence supported the prosecutor’s comments—precluding any legitimate claim of plain error. Second, the record reveals that the challenged discrepancy produced nothing more than ambiguity that is resolved by the district court’s clearly expressed intent: reimposition of the original conditions of supervised release. View "USA v. Porter" on Justia Law

Defendant made two social media posts indicating that he paid another man, who was positive for COVID-19, to lick every item at a local grocery store. Defendant did not actually pay the other man, but the posts "set off alarm bells" resulting in FBI agents being dispatched to the grocery store.Defendant was indicted and ultimately convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1038(a)(1) for orchestrating a hoax that simulated another crime. Defendant claimed on appeal that the biological-weapons statute did not extend to conduct such as licking items in a grocery store and that the terrorist-hoax statute is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. The Fifth Circuit rejected Defendant's challenges, finding that although the biological-weapons statute does contain an implied exception for local crimes, Defendant's purported conduct was serious enough to place him within the purview of federal law enforcement, and threats like Defendant's are not protected by the First Amendment. View "USA v. Perez" on Justia Law

Appellee brought a retaliatory arrest claim against the Mayor and Chief of Police of Castle Hills, claiming that she was arrested for engaging in protected speech. However, Appellee acknowledges that there was probable cause for her arrest. Appellants asserted a qualified immunity defense. The district court denied Appellants' motion to dismiss.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying Appellant's motion to dismiss, finding Appellee failed to establish a violation of her constitutional rights in her retaliatory arrest claim because the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest. While probable cause to arrest does not necessarily preclude a retaliatory arrest claim, Appellee failed to establish any of these exceptions. View "Gonzalez v. Trevino" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence.  Defendant challenged the denial of three pre-trial motions: leave to file untimely motions to suppress, its merits, and a motion for a continuance.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, including its order of forfeiture. The court explained that to show plain error, Defendant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious, which affects his substantial rights. With that showing, the court has the discretion to correct the error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.   Here, the court found no privacy interest was here invaded— information subject to the daily view of strollers and the community. Thus, Defendant failed to show that the district court clearly erred in not suppressing the video evidence.  Next, the court wrote that Defendant offered no proof that the affiant deliberately or recklessly falsified statements about the information from cooperating defendants to mislead the court. Therefore, Defendant cannot show that the district court plainly erred when it declined to suppress evidence from the search of his property.   Further, Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence because the district court did not consider the changing legal status of marijuana. Defendant has already received what he now requests: a downward variance of his sentence to account for the difference between marijuana and other drugs. View "USA v. Dennis" on Justia Law

Defendant owned and operated a healthcare clinic. Along with another provider, Defendant engaged in a scheme to fraudulently bill Medicare for home health services that were not properly authorized, not medically necessary, and, in some cases, not provided. Insiders testified to Defendant's role in the conspiracy, indicating she knew the home healthcare agencies were paying marketers to recruit patients. Defendant also told an undercover FBI agent she could show him how to make money by recruiting patients. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to 300 months in federal prison.Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence against her. However, the Fifth Circuit affirmed her conviction, finding that a rational jury could have concluded that Defendant knew about and willfully joined the conspiracy. Additionally, the court rejected Defendant's challenges to her sentence, finding that the district court did not commit a procedural error and that her sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "USA v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

An officer performed a traffic stop on Defendant in the middle of the night. Having been given reason to suspect that Defendant who revealed an aggravated robbery conviction, had a gun, the officer handcuffed him and asked where it was. Defendant answered, and the officer’s partner arrived later to find a .40 caliber pistol and .37 ounces of marijuana in Defendant’s backpack between the front seats of the van he drove. Before Defendant divulged that information, the officer did not provide Miranda warnings.   A grand jury indicted Defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant then moved to “suppress all statements [he made] in response to the officer’s questioning once he was in handcuffs.” The district court granted the suppression motion. The government filed an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s judgment and the trial has been continued pending resolution of the appeal.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment. The court explained that the admissibility of Defendant’s unwarned statements, therefore, depends on whether he was “in custody” as contemplated by Miranda at the time he offered them.   Here, based on the totality of the circumstances a reasonable person in Defendant’s position would not have equated the restraint on his freedom of movement with formal arrest. But even if Defendant could have reasonably thought that he was in custody for Miranda purposes after being handcuffed, the environment in which the officer questioned him was not tantamount to a station house interrogation as contemplated by Miranda. View "USA v. Coulter" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Defendant on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Defendant moved to suppress the revolver and ammo, arguing the officers unlawfully stopped him. At an evidentiary hearing, an officer testified for the government, and Defendant introduced bodycam footage from an officer who arrived on scene after the seizure, as well as photographs and maps of the area.   Defendant challenged only whether the officers had reasonable suspicion for the stop; he does not challenge the frisk. He argued the description of the wanted gang member was too general and the detail about the past flight from police on the bicycle was too “sparse” and potentially “stale.” The government relied on the description of the subject and the bicycle, the location, and the officers’ knowledge of gang activity in the area.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and vacated his conviction and sentence. The court held that the officers’ stop of Defendant was not supported by reasonable suspicion. This case involves an outstanding warrant—completed criminal activity—so the information the officers relied on must satisfy a higher level of specificity than if they were responding to a report of ongoing or very recent criminal activity.   Further, the court wrote it does not blindly accept officers’ reliance on information obtained through police channels; the government must substantiate the basis of the information. Here, the government has not established reasonable suspicion that could have been transferred between officers, the collective knowledge doctrine does not apply. View "USA v. Alvarez" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of sexually abusing a minor girl over a period of three years and conspiring to obstruct justice by destroying his laptop computer. Defendant appealed raising numerous arguments. The Fifth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court’s decision and affirmed.   Defendant argued that the federal prosecution violated double jeopardy because he was subjected to punitive pretrial bond conditions in state court before being tried and convicted in federal court. The court explained that the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause states that no person may be “twice put in jeopardy” “for the same offense.” Thus, the court held that law-of-the-case doctrine forecloses Defendant’s double jeopardy argument.   Further, Defendant argued that his constitutional rights were violated when he was prohibited from discovering certain evidence that purportedly showed the victim and others’ financial motives to lie. The court found that the relevant events do not establish that Defendant was denied a “meaningful opportunity” to present a complete defense.   Finally, the court reviewed the district court’s decision to exclude evidence as a sanction for violating a discovery rule or pretrial order for abuse of discretion. Aside from arguing that exclusion is never appropriate, Defendant does not contend that the district court abused its discretion when it excluded his medical records. Consequently, we treat the issue as waived and leave undisturbed the district court’s decision to exclude these documents. View "USA v. Wills" on Justia Law

In a criminal appeal, Defendant presented two issues. First, whether evidence discovered after a consent search of Defendant’s car should be suppressed because law enforcement stopped Morris without reasonable suspicion or overbore his free will to obtain consent to search his vehicle. Second, whether at sentencing the district court erred in holding that Defendant was ineligible for a minor role adjustment because the other participants in the crime had not been indicted or otherwise identified. 
 The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and remanded for reconsideration of his motion to suppress. The court wrote it was convinced that the sheriff’s deputies in the case effected a stop of Defendant under the Fourth Amendment. The court explained that because the district court held that Defendant was not stopped, it did not determine whether the deputies had reasonable suspicion to do so. Thus, the court’s decision is a determination that the district court must make in the first instance, as it usually involves assessing the credibility of witnesses and weighing this evidence under the totality of the circumstances. View "USA v. Morris" on Justia Law