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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 65 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. The court stated that, although the district court committed plain error by relying on a bare arrest record at sentencing, the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights because he cannot show that he would have received a lesser sentence absent the error. In this case, given the district court's emphasis on defendant's immigration history, and in particular the decision to impose the same 65 month sentence he had received previously, the court cannot say that there is a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence absent consideration of the bare arrest record. View "United States v. Zarco-Beiza" on Justia Law

Pennywell delivered his petition for direct review of his state conviction—which resulted in multiple life sentences—to prison guards for mailing. Through some unknown fault in the mailing process, the Louisiana Supreme Court never received the petition. Once Pennywell discovered the petition had never arrived at the Louisiana Supreme Court, he promptly refiled it. As a result of the untimeliness caused by the mailing failure of his first petition, however, the Louisiana Supreme Court dismissed his renewed petition for direct review as untimely. That decision was the basis for all subsequent denials of state and federal post-conviction relief.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Pennywell’s petition, holding that Pennywell was entitled to equitable tolling. The failure to timely deliver the petition to the Louisiana Supreme Court was through no fault of Pennywell; by the failure of the mail system, Pennywell was “prevented in some extraordinary way from asserting his rights.” Given the undisputed facts, Pennywell demonstrated due diligence and an extraordinary circumstance that justify equitable tolling. View "Pennywell v. Hooper" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the parties that, in light of Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021), defendant's conviction for aggravated assault in Texas does not qualify as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2). The court remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose of reforming its judgment to reflect defendant's conviction and sentencing under section 1326(b)(1). View "United States v. Gomez Gomez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit dismissed a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner subject to removal because he committed two crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). After determining that res judicata does not bar the proceedings, the court concluded that petitioner's conviction for deadly conduct qualified as a CIMT because reckless offenses may constitute CIMTs and deadly conduct, which requires an offender to take actions creating imminent danger or serious physical injury, is categorically a CIMT. The court also concluded that petitioner's 2005 adjustment to lawful permanent resident status constitutes the operative admission for purposes of this removal proceeding under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). Therefore, because petitioner's convictions for deadly conduct and evading arrest occurred after he adjusted his status, he has been convicted of two CIMTs after admission to the United States. View "Diaz Esparza v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possesses with intent to distribute a controlled substance and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The court concluded that, even if the district court erred in accepting his plea to conspiracy, defendant failed to demonstrate that his substantial rights were affected under plain error review. Finding United States v. Martinez, 15 F.4th 1179 (5th Cir. 2021, persuasive, the court also concluded that the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in including the standard conditions of supervised release in defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Vargas" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for charges stemming from his involvement in a significant tax fraud scheme. The scheme involved the use of several offshore accounts, including certain accounts in the Isle of Man. Defendant appeals both the denial of the motions to dismiss and the denial of his requested jury instruction. The court concluded that defendant was entitled to have the district court fully consider his statute of limitations defense, to have the district court calculate the exact time the statute of limitations ran under existing precedent, to dismissal of any charge that was untimely under that calculation, and to a jury instruction on the statute of limitations defense. View "United States v. Pursley" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences for various drug trafficking counts after attempting to drive a pickup truck containing over 38 kilograms of methamphetamine hidden in a compartment in the truck's tires from Mexico into the United States. Defendants raised numerous issues on appeal.The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendants' Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motions; although the district court erred by allowing the Government to elicit improper expert testimony from a Border Patrol agent, the error did not affect defendants' substantial rights; the Government did not impermissibly comment on defendants' silence in its opening and closing arguments; and the Government did not improperly allude to evidence not in the record during its closing argument. The court rejected Defendant Melissa Lara's three independent arguments. Finally, the court concluded that Defendant Mary Ann Lara's 288 month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Lara" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's request for modification of a law-enforcement condition. Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and carrying a weapon on an aircraft. Defendant was sentenced to 65 months in prison and three years of supervised release. On appeal, defendant argues that, by prohibiting his employment as a security guard, the district court impermissibly modified the law-enforcement condition without first holding a hearing as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32.1(c)(1).Under either the abuse of discretion or plain error standard, the court concluded that defendant's argument lacks merit. The court agreed with the district court's determination that defendant's sentence, and specifically the law enforcement supervised release condition, prohibits the employment in question. Consequently, no hearing to modify his conditions of release was required. Furthermore, even construed as a request to modify an excessively strict release condition, the court affirmed the district court's reiteration of its tailored and reasonable relationship to defendant's offenses of conviction. View "United States v. Bautista-Gunter" on Justia Law

The en banc court vacated the district court's preliminary injunction and remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of conducting such proceedings as it considers appropriate and making detailed findings and conclusions concerning abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and related caselaw, and on the effect of Senate Bill 6 on the issues in this case.The court agreed with its sister circuit that, on the appeal from a preliminary injunction, issues relating to whether there is a proper suit at all can be decided, such as the existence of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and questions regarding abstention. The court concluded that it is possible on this record and briefing to make limited holdings now about whether any defendant was acting on behalf of Dallas County and about standing. In regard to abstention, the court concluded that briefing exists but is cursory. Therefore, the court ordered a limited remand for the district court to conduct such proceedings as it finds appropriate and decide whether abstention is required. Once that decision is made, the court will complete its review. View "Daves v. Dallas County" on Justia Law

Fuentes-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the U.S. after having been previously convicted of an aggravated felony (8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2)) and was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed that his underlying felony conviction for family-violence assault under Texas Penal. Code 22.01(a)(1) constituted an aggravated felony. While his certiorari petition was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Borden" (2021) 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) of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Fuentes-Rodriguez’s underlying Texas conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony only through 18 U.S.C. 16(a),2 which defines a “crime of violence” almost identically to the ACCA’s “violent felony” provision. On remand, the Fifth Circuit vacated. 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 but 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 for entry of an amended judgment by the district court will reduce the risk of future confusion. A reformed judgment should reflect 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.” View "United States v. Fuentes-Rodriguez" on Justia Law