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

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act (FSA) and remanded in light of United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021). The district court did not have the benefit of Shkambi, where the court clarified that Section 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines does not bind district courts when they resolve prisoners’ compassionate-release motions, when it denied defendant's motion and it appears to have mistakenly concluded that Section 1B1.13 governed its analysis of defendant's prisoner-filed motion. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' action against the TDCJ and several of its officials over prison conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs allege that TDCJ failed to provide reasonable accommodations for their co-morbidities and take other precautions against the COVID-19 pandemic and, in so doing, violated their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.The court concluded that plaintiffs' undisputed failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) resolves this case. Considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, TDCJ's written response to the Step 1 grievance shows that TDCJ's grievance process could provide at least some relief to plaintiffs. The court explained that the process may have been suboptimal, but it was available as a matter of law and thus, plaintiffs were required to exhaust it before bringing this suit. View "Thoele v. Collier" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 120 month sentence for attempting to obtain or possess methamphetamine in prison. The court concluded that the district court did not err by applying the USSG 2P1.2 cross-reference to USSG 2D1.1 and the subsequent two-level enhancement of USSG 2D1.1(b)(4) based on defendant's intention to distribute the methamphetamine. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying the two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(c) based on defendant's role as a leader in the scheme. View "United States v. Anguiano" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether defendant's lawyer's conflict of interest adversely affected his representation. In this case, unbeknownst to defendant, her pretrial attorney—who represented her until days before trial—also represented one of the Government's star witnesses. Defendant retained new counsel and was convicted.The court agreed with defendant that "Assistance of Counsel" necessarily means effective assistance, and effective assistance demands conflict-free representation. The court stated that this is certainly no less true during the pretrial phase, particularly today, when roughly 97.8 percent of federal criminal convictions are obtained not through a constitutionally prescribed jury trial but through plea bargaining. The court otherwise affirmed the district court's denial of a continuance and rejected defendant's additional grounds for reversal. View "United States v. Sheperd" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to forcibly and intentionally assaulting his then-girlfriend. The court concluded that the district court erred in assessing 3 criminal history points for a stale 2002 conviction, which affected defendant's substantial rights. In this case, had defendant's PSR been calculated correctly, his resulting criminal history category would have been IV and not the category V score he was originally assessed. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. The court affirmed the district court's application of the bodily injury enhancement under USSG 2A2.2(b)(3)(A) where, in light of the record, it was plausible for the district court to find that the victim sustained a bodily injury under section 2A2.2(b)(3)(A). View "United States v. Blanco" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the modification of the original judgment against defendant because his exemption from the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) materially changed his economic circumstances pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3664(k). The court need not take a position on the precise standard of review because the modification must be affirmed either way. Furthermore, it is unnecessary to decide which party bears the burden of proof when the government seeks modification under section 3664(k). In this case, the court concluded that the sentencing judges have broad discretion in ordering restitution and are not required to make specific findings on each factor listed in section 3664. The court also concluded that a material change occurred in defendant's economic circumstances when, as a consequence of the California court's habeas judgment, he became exempt from the IFRP and was allowed to keep 100% of his prison wages, as opposed to being required to hand over $30/month toward restitution (the amount prescribed by the prison warden). Moreover, holding that an exemption from the IFRP does not materially change a defendant's economic circumstances would undermine the principles of criminal restitution. View "United States v. Tarnawa" on Justia Law

One of two reports of an armed confrontation at the Eden Apartments identified one perpetrator as “Thomas Johnson,” who was driving a red truck with rims. Officer Green responded and encountered a stationary red truck near an elementary school, which had been closed for months. When Green exited his car, Johnson stepped out holding a semiautomatic pistol with an extended magazine. His brother was driving. Johnson ran toward the school. As vehicles passed nearby, Green drew his weapon and yelled, “Drop the gun!” Johnson continued to run, Green fired at him. Green chased Johnson into an open field and continued to chase Johnson, ordering him to drop the gun and instructing onlookers to lie on the ground. Officer McKinney, at the opposite side of the field, saw Johnson outrunning Green. Johnson changed direction toward a neighborhood. Johnson ignored orders to stop. McKinney fired at Johnson, who continued to flee. Both officers gave chase, repeatedly ordering Johnson to stop and drop the gun. When in range, both officers shot. Johnson fell and dropped his gun. Johnson died on the scene.In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the court granted the officers summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part. The use of deadly force was not constitutionally excessive. The officers could have reasonably believed that Johnson threatened them and others with serious physical harm. View "Wilson v. City of Bastrop" on Justia Law

In 1991, McFarland and an accomplice robbed Kwan’s store. McFarland’s accomplice pressed a gun against a security guard’s head. The guard dropped his weapon. McFarland or the accomplice then fatally shot Kwan. Only McFarland was prosecuted. He is on death row. After exhausting his state remedies, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition.The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court first rejected a claim of ineffective assistance. During trial, McFarland’s retained counsel, Benn was sleeping throughout significant portions of the trial and otherwise presented as unprepared. The trial judge decided to appoint additional counsel. McFarland refused to agree, but the judge appointed Melamed to serve as “second chair.” Melamed was an experienced criminal defense lawyer but he had yet to try a capital case. McFarland repeatedly affirmed that he wanted to keep Benn as counsel and would not cooperate with Melamed in securing mitigation witnesses. The court also rejected Sixth Amendment and Brady claims. McFarland did not have counsel during an identification lineup; a finding that his arrest warrant was not a formal criminal complaint giving rise to his right to counsel was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, nor was a finding that “the prosecution did not fail to disclose.” View "McFarland v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit remanded to the district court to reform the judgment to reflect conviction and sentencing under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1). The court applied Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2249 (2016), and agreed with defendant that he was erroneously sentenced under section 1326(b)(2) because the district court misclassified his previous Texas state conviction for sexual assault as an "aggravated felony." The court explained that the district court's implicit application of the modified categorical approach to conclude that defendant's conviction was an "aggravated felony" based on language in his state court indictment constituted clear and obvious error. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Flores" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against numerous individuals and entities after he was exonerated and released from prison after serving seventeen years for a rape he did not commit. The only remaining claim is for false imprisonment under Texas state law against two retired El Paso, Texas detectives who were involved in the investigation of his 1987 rape charges.The Fifth Circuit noted that the elements of false imprisonment under Texas state law are (1) willful detention; (2) without consent; and (3) without authority of law, and that the plaintiff must satisfy all three elements to prevail on his false imprisonment claim. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the detectives, concluding that plaintiff failed to satisfy the first element—willful detention by the defendants. The court explained that willful detention may be shown even when the defendant does not actively detain the plaintiff if the defendant instigates the false imprisonment: that is to say, the defendant engages in conduct that is intended to cause one to be detained, and in fact causes the detention. In this case, there is no evidence to support plaintiff's contention that defendants instigated his arrest. Therefore, because plaintiff fails to demonstrate that his arrest was instigated by the detectives, his false imprisonment claim under Texas state law fails. View "Moon v. Olivarez" on Justia Law