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

The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. The court agreed with the Government that, contrary to defendant's contention, the district court could have considered the unused enhancement at the 2009 sentencing proceeding, and therefore it did not abuse its discretion by considering that information in its 2020 order. In this case, the district court implicitly recognized its duty to impose a sentence as if all the conditions for the original sentencing were again in place with the one exception of the changes in the law wrought by the Act. The district court ultimately concluded that given the valuable consideration of both parties reflected by the plea agreement, it would exercise its discretion to deny defendant's motion. View "United States v. Lyons" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court properly recharacterized petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion as a successive habeas petition and transferred it to this court to consider whether it met the precertification criteria in 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3). Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion argued that new evidence demonstrates his counsel's ineffectiveness and shows that his conviction was constitutionally infirm. He also argued that the prosecutor violated his due process rights by presenting false testimony. The court has repeatedly held that this kind of argumentation is fundamentally substantive and presents paradigmatic habeas claims. View "Jackson v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct defendant's sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing. The court concluded that counsel was not deficient at sentencing for failing to object to the sentencing court's loss calculation on foreseeability grounds. Furthermore, even assuming that counsel's performance was deficient, defendant was not prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance. View "United States v. Lagos" on Justia Law

Bates was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and received a 71-month sentence. On appeal, he argued that the district court improperly applied an enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines for defendants with prior felony convictions for “crime[s] of violence.” U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). Bates’s prior conviction was for Texas’s version of assault of a public servant, which has a minimum mental state requirement of recklessness. In 2020, the Fifth Circuit rejected his argument.The Supreme Court then issued its 2021 “Borden” decision that crimes that can be committed recklessly cannot qualify as a “violent felony” under the “elements clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act. The Fifth Circuit subsequently held that Borden governs what can qualify as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Fifth Circuit then vacated Bates’ conviction and remanded to the district court. Under Borden, because Texas assault of a public servant can be committed recklessly, Bates has not committed a crime of violence as defined by the Sentencing Guidelines’ elements clause. View "United States v. Bates" on Justia Law

Officers performed a traffic stop of Alvarado’s vehicle. Alvarado's girlfriend, Lujan, was in the vehicle. With Alvarado’s consent, they searched the vehicle and discovered 28.505 grams of methamphetamine and a firearm. The officers also discovered a gun, 1 gram of methamphetamine, and 0.4 grams of marijuana in Lujan’s purse. A search of Alvarado's and Lujan’s hotel room revealed another firearm, 109.7 grams of methamphetamine, 24.137 grams of heroin, 22 grams of marijuana, and $10,694 in currency. A month later, police stopped Lujan's vehicle. She consented to a search. Officers discovered 28.51 grams of methamphetamine and eight ecstasy pills. Lujan admitted that she had sold approximately three ounces of methamphetamine since Alvarado’s arrest.According to her PSR, Lujan was accountable for 1.85 kilograms of methamphetamine: 167.715 grams, seized from Alvarado and Lujan, three ounces Lujan admitted to selling, and 1,600 grams based on a cash-to-drug conversion of the $10,694 seized from the hotel room. Her Sentencing Guidelines range was 168-210 months. Lujan objected to the PSR’s cash-to-drug conversion as inappropriately using the “wholesale” price of methamphetamine, rather than “the going price of methamphetamine . . . to an average user,” i.e., the “retail” price. The district court overruled the objections and sentenced Lujan to 168 months’ imprisonment. The Fifth Circuit vacated. The district court implausibly found that Lujan would have used the entirety of the $10,694 to purchase more methamphetamine. View "United States v. Lujan" on Justia Law

Hammond pleaded guilty to bank fraud, money laundering, and obstructing the administration of internal revenue laws in 2017. The district court granted him a U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 downward departure and a downward variance, then sentenced him to one year and one day of imprisonment with three years of supervised release. Hammond was released in August 2019. In March 2021, the Probation Office (USPO) filed to revoke Hammond’s supervised release, alleging two Class C violations. Hammond admitted to failing to report a DUI arrest. The district court found him guilty of sending an impersonator to take a drug test, calculated Hammond’s guideline range at five-11 months, upwardly departed under Guidelines section 7B1.4 cmt. n.4 and imposed a 24-month sentence.Hammond claimed that the district court failed to put him on notice that it might upwardly depart under section 7B1. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Before the revocation hearing, USPO submitted a violation worksheet, and the government submitted a revocation sentencing memorandum. Both discussed the possibility of an upward departure under 7B1.4, which provides: Where the original sentence was the result of a downward departure (e.g., as a reward for substantial assistance), or a charge reduction that resulted in a sentence below the guideline range applicable to the defendant’s underlying conduct, an upward departure may be warranted. View "United States v. Hammond" on Justia Law

In 2019, the Fifth Circuit affirmed Fuentes-Rodriguez’s sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the U.S. following deportation and having been previously convicted of an aggravated felony. The court held that his prior Texas conviction qualified as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16. While his petition was pending, the Supreme Court decided in "Borden" that a crime capable of commission with “a less culpable mental state than purpose or knowledge,” such as “recklessness,” cannot qualify as a “violent felony” under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(I), the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit vacated. Fuentes-Rodriguez’s underlying Texas conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony only through 18 U.S.C. 16(a), which defines a “crime of violence” almost identically to the ACCA’s “violent felony” provision at issue in Borden. Fuentes-Rodriguez should not have been sentenced under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) because Texas’s family-violence assault can be committed recklessly. His conviction falls within 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1), which covers illegal reentry after conviction for a non-aggravated felony. The district court’s judgment should be reformed because section 1326(b)(2) is associated with worse collateral consequences than section 1326(b)(1). Remanding the case for entry of an amended judgment, reflecting that Fuentes-Rodriguez was convicted and sentenced under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1) as an “Alien Unlawfully Found in the United States after Deportation, Having Previously Been Convicted of a Felony,” will reduce the risk of future confusion. View "United States v. Fuentes-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for mail fraud, concluding that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant, through her adoption agency, engaged in a scheme to defraud two families seeking to adopt by double matching them with one birth mother. In this case, a reasonable jury could have found that defendant used the mails to further her fraudulent scheme, and that defendant had the specific intent to defraud in executing the double matching scheme. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying a two-level vulnerable victim sentencing enhancement under USSG 3A1.1(b)(1). Finally, the court upheld the district court's order of restitution to one of the families. View "United States v. Swenson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress drugs found in two packages that were seized by the USPS. Based on the aggregate of factors, and contrary to defendant's contentions, the court concluded that the postal employee had reasonable suspicion to detain the packages. The court also concluded that the 17-day delay between the detention of the package and its search did not constitute an unreasonable, warrantless seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the eight-day delay between the establishment of probable cause and obtaining the search warrants was reasonable. Finally, defendant's argument that the search warrants were invalid is meritless. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court in light of Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021), the Fifth Circuit concluded that the robbery offense of which appellee was convicted under the Texas simple robbery statute, Tex. Penal Code Ann. 29.02, was robbery-by-threat, a valid Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) predicate for an enhanced sentence that was not affected by Borden. Therefore, the court reinstated its judgment reversing the district court's imposition of a lesser sentence, and remanded to the district court for resentencing under the ACCA. View "United States v. Garrett" on Justia Law