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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for conspiring to possess firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying an enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because defendant's crime of conviction was distinct from the crime used to support the application of the (b)(6)(B) enhancement. In this case, defendant was convicted for conspiring to possess guns (i.e., make straw purchases) to help drug dealers, but defendant's sentence was enhanced under (b)(6)(B) because the straw purchases were used to protect or aid in the drug trafficking activity of the distributors. Therefore, the other felony offense for (b)(6)(B) purposes was the drug dealing conspiracy of the distributors, which was distinct from defendant's.The court also concluded that the district court did not plainly err by applying both the section 2K2.1(b)(5) and (b)(6)(B) enhances as the district court did not apply the enhancements based on the same offense, but instead enhanced defendant's sentence to reflect his involvement in two distinct offenses. View "United States v. Singletary" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a risk-notification condition of supervised release. Defendant contends that the risk-notification condition impermissibly delegates Article III power to the probation officer. The court concluded that the district court's error, if any, was neither clear nor obvious, and thus there is no plain error here. As defendant acknowledges, the court has already held that a district court does not commit plain error when it imposes this particular condition. View "United States v. Henderson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences for multiple counts of health care fraud and conspiracy stemming from their involvement in a scheme to falsely certify that patients were eligible for home health or hospice services. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supports defendants' convictions for health care fraud and conspiracy to commit that fraud. The court rejected defendants' contention that the government offered no proof that they knew the patients were ineligible for home health and hospice, and that the government did not prove the ineligibility of the six patients whose claims were listed as the substantive fraud counts. Rather, the record shows that defendants were intimately involved with the fraud, and that the certifications for all six patients were either outright lies or based on fabricated medical records.The court also concluded that the district court properly calculated the loss amount when sentencing defendants. In this case, the district court found that defendants' fraud was pervasive and thus treated the entire amount that they billed to Medicare as the intended loss, enhancing defendants' offense levels by 24 points, resulting in an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of life in prison pursuant to USSG 2B1.1. View "United States v. Mesquias" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that defendant's prior conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm under Louisiana state law, La. R.S. 14:37.4, is not categorically a crime of violence as defined in the Sentencing Guidelines. The court examined an amendment to La. R.S. 14:37.4 and reviewed Louisiana state court's application of the amended statute, concluding that it is clear that aggravated assault with a firearm can still be committed negligently in Louisiana. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Garner" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing, withdrew its previous opinion, and substituted the following opinion.The court vacated the certificate of appealability (COA) as invalid, as the parties concede, under 28 U.S.C. U.S.C. 2253(c)(2)–(3) because it fails to specify a constitutional issue. In this case, defendant seeks a valid COA under United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). The court concluded that defendant was not sentenced under the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B). Rather, he was sentenced under the elements clause in 924(c)(3)(A). The court explained that defendant's indictment, his stipulated factual resume, and his plea agreement all confirm that he was convicted of and sentenced for putting the lives of his victims in jeopardy by using a handgun. The court concluded that this easily satisfies the elements clause and renders section 924(c)'s residual clause and Davis irrelevant. Because defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the court could not grant a COA and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Castro" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part a petition challenging petitioner's removability based on an aggravated felony conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for attempting to launder money in violation of Tennessee law. The court concluded that only two of petitioner's five claims in his petition for review have been exhausted. The court also concluded that Tennessee Code section 39- 14- 903(b)(1) was divisible by subsection in light of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2248–49 (2016). Finally, the court concluded that the BIA did not err in concluding that Subsection (b) was a categorical match with the generic crime of money laundering. View "Fakhuri v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to coercion and enticement, sexual exploitation of a child, and possession of child pornography. The court upheld the district court's application of a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G2.1(b)(4)(A) for an offense involving material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence; a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G2.1(b)(3) for distribution of child pornography; and a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) for the commission of a sexual act or sexual contact. The court also upheld the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines grouping rules. View "United States v. McGavitt" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit ordered a limited remand in this appeal challenging the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a reduced sentence under section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. In this case, the district court's order said that it had considered the applicable factors provided in section 404 and 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). However, the district court's additional statement that it considered applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission indicates that the district court may have erroneously applied the compassionate release standard that requires review of policy statements. Because such policy statements are not applicable because defendant averred that he was not seeking compassionate release, the court remanded for clarification. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying defendant's motion for compassionate release or release to home confinement under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) based on extraordinary and compelling reasons including the COVID-19 pandemic. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, factually or legally, by deciding the conditions at defendant's prison and his medical conditions were insufficiently compelling and extraordinary to entitle him to relief. In this case, defendant suffers from hypertension and obesity, and his hypertension is apparently controlled through medication. Furthermore, defendant has not experienced serious heart problems since he suffered a heart attack in 2014 and he has served less than half of his 168-month sentence. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and granted counsel's motion to withdraw. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court plainly erred when it delegated to a probation officer the determination of whether he must participate in an inpatient or outpatient substance abuse treatment program. In this case, the district court merely delegated the details of the conditions to the officer. Furthermore, it is not clear or obvious that a 45-month sentence is short enough such that the delegation of the inpatient or outpatient designation to a probation officer amounts to a restriction of defendant's liberty. Therefore, defendant failed to show plain error. View "United States v. Aguilar-Cerda" on Justia Law