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

Petitioner was convicted of aggravated burglary, manslaughter, and second-degree battery in federal court and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA). Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), Petitioner sought permission to file a second Sec. 2254 petition. The court granted Petitioner's request, mentioning only his aggravated burglary and second-degree battery convictions. However, on remand to the district court, Petitioner collaterally attacked his manslaughter conviction, claiming it did not constitute a "violent felony" under the ACCA. The district court considered Petitioner's claim as it pertained to his manslaughter conviction and rejected it. Petitioner appealed.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit vacated the portion of the district court's order denying Petitioner's claims, and dismissed the claim as it pertains to the manslaughter conviction. The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Petitioner did not have the court's permission to challenge his manslaughter conviction on remand. View "USA v. Hanner" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to narcotics possession and at his sentencing hearing, the court stated that if Defendant were to return to this country, he would be required to report to the nearest probation office within 72 hours. A week later the district court entered a written judgment that included an immediate-reporting requirement. Defendant challenged the written judgment’s inclusion of the immediate-reporting requirement.     The Fifth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court’s judgment and affirmed the decision.   The court held that there is no material difference between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment. The court reasoned that at sentencing the Defendant heard he would have to report to the probation office if he reentered the country, and he said nothing. Therefore, Defendant cannot complain when the judgment later clarified the reporting obligation. The court explained that it has previously asked the district court to amend a written judgment’s immediate-reporting requirement to the orally announced 72-hour-reporting requirement. However, those decisions were non-binding, nonprecedential, and unpublished. Therefore, the court declined to follow them. View "USA v. Perez-Espinoza" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Appellant for capital murder in the death of a police officer. The Fifth Circuit rejected Appellant's last-minute efforts to stop the imposition of his sentence.The Fifth Circuit held that Appellant is unlikely to prevail on his request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”), and he is unlikely to succeed on his Sec. 1983 claim. In addressing habeas, the court rejected Appellant's request for COA on his future-dangerousness claim, and his request for COA on his Lackey claim. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of a stay of execution and dismissal of the 1983 claim and denied the COA.Here, Appellant argued his death sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it was based in part on the jury’s finding of a “probability that Appellant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.” The court explained that reasonable jurors would not find it debatable whether Sec. 2244(b)(1) barred this claim. Further, the court reasoned that it’s undebatable that this claim is procedurally defaulted. Additionally, the court held substantive meritlessness is an independent ground for refusing a COA on Plaintiff’s future-dangerousness claim. Finally, the court held that Plaintiff’s claim is not a method-of-execution challenge; it is a challenge to the validity of his death sentence. It is therefore not cognizable under Sec. 1983. View "Buntion v. Collier" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of seven counts of mail fraud. The pre-sentence report noted that Defendant had a criminal history category of 1 and that the offense level was 39, based on losses of $9,922,428.63. At sentencing, the prosecution conceded that the total loss amount should be reduced by $325,540.35. After applying reductions, the district court sentenced Defendant to 121 months in prison with three years of supervised release. The court also ordered restitution in the amount of $9,922,428.63.Defendant challenged his sentence on several grounds. The district court erred in calculating the total loss amount when it did not accept the prosecution’s concession of the $325,540.35 reduction. Had the district court reduced the total loss amount, the Guidelines would have reflected a lower sentencing range. Here, the district court sentenced Defendant near the bottom of the guideline range. Thus, because the recalculation of the total loss amount lowers the guideline range, the case was remanded for the court to resentence Defendant. View "USA v. Alfaro" on Justia Law

Defendant was federally charged with various child pornography offenses. However, the district court found him incompetent and committed the defendant for evaluation and treatment. The defendant was released to live with his mother and, shortly thereafter, regained competency. However, before trial, the defendant was again deemed incompetent. The district court committed the defendant to a second term of competency-restoration treatment.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order committed the defendant to a second term of competency-restoration. While it is a violation of due process to try an incompetent person for a crime, 18 U.S.C. 4241(a) allows the court to commit an incompetent defendant to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization and treatment for a reasonable period of time, but not to exceed four months. A defendant can be committed for a second term of hospitalization, provided the court finds there is a substantial probability the defendant will regain competency during that time. However, if the medical facility treating the defendant certifies he has regained competency, the court must hold a hearing.The Fifth Circuit rejected the defendant's claim that once the medical facility certified he was competent, he could only be subject to civil commitment. Section 4241(a) allows for two commitment periods. The hospital warden's certification of the defendant's competency does not affect the district court's ability to order a second period of commitment. View "USA v. Ceasar" on Justia Law

While the defendant was a pain-management doctor, he reached an agreement with a pharmacist (“MM”). Per the agreement, MM would create a boilerplate prescription pad designed to assist the defendant in prescribing unnecessary medication. Second, the defendant signed an incomplete form, and third, his employee would step in and complete administrative work before faxing the form to MM. MM would then complete the form for fraudulent insurance reimbursement.The Government brought an eight-count indictment against the defendant. The jury acquitted him on Counts 1–7, but it hung on Count 8. He moved to dismiss Count 8 on double-jeopardy grounds. The defendant must show that the jury necessarily found some fact, and this fact must be an essential element of a retrial. The court reasoned that the defendant failed to meet this because his participation isn’t a necessary element of the Count 8 offense. Defendant next argues that the Government cannot retry him without broadening the indictment. However, the defendant moved to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds, not on the grounds of constructive amendment or variance. Defendant argued only that the collateral-estoppel portion of the Double Jeopardy Clause imposes a total bar to retrial. Even if the defendant asked the district court to exclude a particular argument, the court does not have the authority to review that decision. View "USA v. Auzenne" on Justia Law

Following a guilty plea, Defendant was convicted of transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain. In Defendant’s Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) the probation officer recommended a total offense level of 17. This included a three-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. Sec. 2L1.1(b)(6)) for “intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person.” The basis of the proposed enhancement was the fact that there were nine people in Defendant’s seven-person vehicle at the time he was arrested.The district court rejected Defendant’s challenge to the enhancement and sentenced Defendant to 24 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit first held that assessing the district court’s interpretation of the guidelines de novo review is appropriate. Moving on to the district court’s application of Sec. 2L1.1(b)(6)), the court found the evidence insufficient to apply the reckless endangerment enhancement. Without additional aggravating factors, nonsubstantial overcrowding alone is not enough to justify the application of Sec. 2L1.1(b)(6)). View "USA v. Castelo-Palma" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against Williamson County, Texas (“County”), alleging that county prosecutors denied him due process secured by the Fourteenth Amendment by lying to his counsel during plea negotiations, misconduct caused by the County’s “closed-file” policy. Appellant alleged that both his Brady and due process claims were enabled by the county’s closed-file policy, which prevented his attorneys from examining evidence, leading him to involuntarily plead guilty. The circuit court reasoned that they could not conclude that the closed-file policy caused the prosecutors to lie. Thus he failed to create a triable issue on the causal connection demanded by Monell. Further, the court held that the appellant’s Brady claim is foreclosed. They reasoned that this court’s precedent has consistently held that Brady focused on the integrity of trials and did not reach pre-trial guilty pleas. The circuit court affirmed the magistrate’s grant of summary judgment as there is no showing that a county policy was the force behind the appellant’s constitutional violation argument. View "Mansfield v. Williamson Cty" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence as an armed career criminal pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. The district court treated defendant's Texas aggravated robbery conviction and two Texas burglary-of-a-habitation convictions as the violent felonies compelling the enhanced sentence. Defendant contends that it was unconstitutional for the district court to apply the law as it existed when he was sentenced rather than when he committed the crime.The court concluded that the district court not violate due process by counting defendant's burglary convictions as violent felonies. The court explained that classifying Texas burglary of a habitation as a violent felony is not "clearly at variance" with the ACCA's text; nor was counting defendant's burglary convictions as violent felonies "unexpected" in light of precedent. The court also concluded that defendant's aggravated robbery conviction qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA's elements clause. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The government appealed the pretrial exclusion of certain evidence of lawyer Jason Williams's tax history from the years predating the charged conduct. Williams was indicted for lying on his taxes and failing to report large cash transactions to the IRS. In this case, the district court admitted some evidence, excluded other evidence, and deferred certain rulings until it had the benefit of the context that trial provides. For the rulings it did make, the district court reserved the right to revisit those decisions at trial.The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in concluding that the evidence was improper "other act" evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and, alternatively, inadmissible under the Rule 403 balancing test. The court noted the difficulties of making Rule 404(b) and 403 assessments in the vacuum of pretrial review and concluded that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence based on what it knew at that time. View "United States v. Burdett" on Justia Law