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

Defendants operated a methamphetamine operation in Houston, occasionally distributing the drugs to New Orleans. Both Defendants were arrested and charged with various federal drug charges. Upon their arrest, Defendants agreed to provide information to law enforcement in exchange for the government's agreement not to use any of their statements throughout the proceeding. However, the agreement exempted anything related to a crime of violence. Subsequent investigations put Defendants at the center of a homicide investigation, and they eventually admitted to disposing of a body. For the drug offenses, the court sentenced Defendants to the statutory maximum of 240 months. The district court found that Defendants violated their agreement by failing to initially disclose information related to the homicide. Defendants appealed the use of the information they provided in the proffer.The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The evidence that eventually came out related to the homicide was related to the drug trafficking charges. Thus, the harm that stemmed from their conduct was properly considered at trial. View "USA v. Cantu-Cox" on Justia Law

Defendants operated a methamphetamine operation in Houston, occasionally distributing the drugs to New Orleans. Both Defendants were arrested and charged with various federal drug charges. Upon their arrest, Defendants agreed to provide information to law enforcement in exchange for the government's agreement not to use any of their statements throughout the proceeding. However, the agreement exempted anything related to a crime of violence. Subsequent investigations put Defendants at the center of a homicide investigation, and they eventually admitted to disposing of a body. For the drug offenses, the court sentenced Defendants to the statutory maximum of 240 months. The district court found that Defendants violated their agreement by failing to initially disclose information related to the homicide. Defendants appealed the use of the information they provided in the proffer.The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The evidence that eventually came out related to the homicide was related to the drug trafficking charges. Thus, the harm that stemmed from their conduct was properly considered at trial. View "USA v. Cantu-Cox" on Justia Law

A district court convicted Defendant of kidnapping and racketeering following a bench trial. Defendant appealed  his sentence and racketeering conviction, arguing that the district court lacked substantial evidence to convict him and clearly erred by failing to apply a mitigating role adjustment.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that Defendant failed to show that the district court lacked evidence to conclude that he committed a crime of violence with intent to further a drug trafficking enterprise, and he does not demonstrate that the district court erred in its sentencing calculation for kidnapping. The court explained that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, there are sufficient facts to justify the trial judge’s conclusion that Defendant committed the kidnapping with the intent to further drug trafficking activity. Defendant’s reference to a partnership with a known drug dealer in the Dallas area, his proximity to locations known for drug dealing, and his actions on behalf of the drug dealer during the kidnapping support reasonable inferences that Defendant acted to further drug dealing activities.   Furthermore, the government’s evidence provides little basis for Defendant to argue that he was “substantially less culpable than the average participant” in the kidnapping given that he picked the victim up from the street, transported him to the apartment, took part in the violence, and pursued him afterward. The district court did not err by declining to apply the mitigating role adjustment. View "USA v. Lott" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the district court's order that he remain detained pending trial for federal narcotics and weapons charges. Defendant conceded that there was a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure his appearance at trial and the safety of the community.Applying the factors set forth in sec. 3142, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Primarily, the court considered the first and fourth factors, which included the amount of drugs in question and the risk of future dangerousness. The court held that the third factor, related to whether Defendant was a flight risk, was unnecessary to support the district court's determination. View "USA v. Flores" on Justia Law

Defendant challenges two conditions of his sentence, 1.) that he refrain from excessive alcohol consumption, and 2.) that he take all mental-health medications that are prescribed by his treating physician. The government conceded that condition 1 should be struck because it was not orally pronounced by the district court. However, the Fifth Circuit rejected the government's claim that the district court's general discussion of the importance of mental health treatment was sufficient to meet the notice requirement. Thus, the court struck both conditions. View "USA v. Prado" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 77ff. The district court sentenced Defendant to 168 months in prison and imposed roughly $6.8 million in restitution. In exchange for Defendant's plea, the Government agreed to dismiss five other counts, which carried a maximum term of 100 years in prison. As part of his agreement, Defendant waived his right to appeal.Defendant subsequently filed notice of appeal, challenging the application of a sentencing enhancement and the court's restitution award. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Defendant's appeal, finding that he waived the right to appeal when he signed the plea agreement. View "USA v. Meredith" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin. This offense carries a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated the advisory imprisonment range as 135 to 168 months, or if Defendant received a three-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, 97 to 121 months. But because of the mandatory minimum, the PSR elevated its calculated guideline range to 120 to 121 months. Palomares objected to the PSR, arguing that she was eligible for relief under the safety valve. In particular, she argued that a plain reading of Section 3553(f)(1) only requires mandatory minimum sentences for defendants whose history meets all three disqualifying criteria listed in subsections (A)– (C)—not just one. And because only one of the disqualifying criteria applied to her, she argued that she was eligible for relief.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court held to be eligible for safety valve relief, a defendant must show that she does not have more than 4 criminal history points, does not have a 3-point offense, and does not have a 2-point violent offense. Because Defendant had a previous 3-point offense, she is ineligible for safety valve relief. The court held that the phrase “does not have” independently applies to each subsection in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(f)(1), rendering criminal defendants ineligible for safety valve relief if they run afoul of any one of its requirements View "USA v. Palomares" on Justia Law

Petitioner is scheduled for execution on November 9, 2022. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death in 2004 for the capital murder of his mother. In early September of 2022, when there was no pending litigation, Petitioner moved the district court under 18 U.S.C. Section 3599(e) to compel the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to unshackle his hands during expert evaluations that his counsel had scheduled for later in September. The district court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner appealed and filed a concurrent motion to stay his execution.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court and denied as moot Petitioner’s motion for stay. The court explained that intentional delay tactics near execution dates are commonplace enough that our court has a rule specifically addressing the timing of challenges to death sentences and/or execution procedures. Here, the court reasoned that because Petitioner has provided no legitimate justification as to why this appeal is anything but a delay tactic, the district court would not have abused its discretion in denying relief even if section 3599 could grant jurisdiction to make that decision. View "Beatty v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction under Section 912, claiming that the district court erred in adopting the Government’s jury instructions. Defendant also appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in applying the cross-reference provision in U.S.S.G. Section 2J1.4(c)(1).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction under Section 912, but vacated the district court’s application of U.S.S.G. Section 2J1.4(c)(1) and remanded for resentencing. The court held that that the jury instruction was satisfactory, but the facts do not support the application of the cross-reference provision to the drug-trafficking sentencing guidelines. The court explained that the record fully support’s Defendant’s conviction under Section 912. (1) Defendant intentionally and falsely pretended to be an FBI agent doing fieldwork in Texas; (2) he completed numerous overt acts consistent with his FBI agent impersonation; and (3) he completed the impersonation and overt acts with the “intent to deceive to act differently than he would have acted absent the deception.” Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s desired jury instruction or reversibly misstate an element of his offense in its adoption of the Government’s.   However, the record fails to support the Government’s argument that Defendant attempted to traffic fentanyl. For the Government to prevail on its theory that Defendant’s false impersonation was done in the facilitation of violating Section 841(a), it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had the requisite state of mind to be guilty of that offense. View "USA v. Ferris" on Justia Law

Petitioner’s filed a petition in the district court under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 challenging his state convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping, and purse snatching on various constitutional grounds. The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred and denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability (COA). Petitioner then asked our court to grant him a COA on both the district court’s procedural ruling as well as the substantive claims in his Section 2254 petition.   The Fifth Circuit vacated the COA and dismissed the appeal. The court explained that Petitioner’s “procedural-only” COA is barred by Section 2253. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that such a COA is invalid because it says nothing at all about the Constitution. The court further reasoned that while it can also issue a valid COA in place of the invalid one, that does not apply here. Here, having examined the constitutional claims in Petitioner’s Section 2254 petition, the court cannot say he has made a substantial showing as to any of them. View "Pierre v. Hooper" on Justia Law