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

Betty Butler pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony. This charge stemmed from a DEA search warrant executed at her home, where agents found a firearm and a small amount of marijuana. Butler admitted to possessing the firearm. She was subsequently indicted and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, with the government alleging that she qualified for a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) due to her prior serious drug offenses.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi conducted a factual inquiry into Butler’s prior convictions and determined that she had at least three convictions for serious drug offenses committed on different occasions. This finding enhanced her sentence to a statutory minimum of 180 months in prison under the ACCA. Butler objected, arguing that a jury should determine whether her prior offenses occurred on different occasions, but the district court overruled her objections based on existing precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court acknowledged that the Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v. United States required a jury to resolve the ACCA’s “different occasions” inquiry unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the lack of a jury determination in Butler’s case was harmless error. The court reasoned that any rational jury would have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Butler committed her previous serious drug offenses on different occasions based on the entire record. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit affirmed Butler’s sentence and the district court’s final judgment. View "United States v. Butler" on Justia Law

Andre Louis Keller drove to a permanent immigration checkpoint where a Customs & Border Protection (CBP) canine alerted to his vehicle. Upon searching, agents found an alien unlawfully present in the United States concealed under luggage. Keller conditionally pleaded guilty and appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence found in the vehicle.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a hearing on Keller’s motion to suppress. Testimonies were provided by CBP Agent Jesse Sandoval, Matthew B. Devaney from CBP’s Canine Academy, and Andre Falco Jimenez, a private police dog trainer. The district court denied Keller’s motion, leading to his conditional guilty plea. Keller was sentenced to 20 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. He then appealed the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that stopping a vehicle for brief questioning at a permanent immigration checkpoint is not a Fourth Amendment search and does not require probable cause. The court found that the canine’s alert provided probable cause to search Keller’s vehicle. The court also concluded that the canine’s actions did not constitute an unlawful search and that the district court did not err in its ruling. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Keller’s motion to suppress. View "United States v. Keller" on Justia Law

Enrique Morales was sentenced to 188 months in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to operate an illegal money-transmitting business and conspiracy to launder funds. His presentence report calculated a total offense level of 41, including a four-level enhancement for his role as an organizer/leader of criminal activity. Morales had no criminal history points, resulting in a guideline range of 324 to 405 months, which was adjusted to 300 months due to statutory maximums. The government recommended a downward departure for his substantial assistance, and the district court sentenced him to 188 months in total.Morales filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the new zero-point-offender provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which allows for a decrease in offense level for certain offenders. The district court denied the motion, stating that Morales was ineligible for the reduction because he had received an aggravating-role adjustment under USSG § 3B1.1(a).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that to qualify for the zero-point-offender reduction under USSG § 4C1.1, a defendant must meet all criteria, including not having received an adjustment under § 3B1.1 and not being engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise. Since Morales received a § 3B1.1 adjustment, he was ineligible for the reduction. The court concluded that either receiving a § 3B1.1 adjustment or engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise is sufficient to disqualify a defendant from the reduction. Thus, the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Morales" on Justia Law

Sekhar Rao was involved in a scheme to defraud TRICARE, a federal health benefit plan, by ordering medically unnecessary toxicology and DNA cancer screening tests. These tests were billed to TRICARE through a shell company, ADAR Group, LLC, which set up fraudulent testing sites. Rao, a physician, was hired to sign off on these tests without reviewing patient medical information or meeting the patients. He was paid per test ordered. The scheme involved using a signature stamp of Rao’s signature to sign requisition forms, which Rao allegedly knew about and consented to.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Rao was acquitted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud but was convicted of two counts of substantive health care fraud related to specific fraudulent claims submitted to TRICARE. The district court sentenced him to 48 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, and calculated the loss amount under the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on the intended loss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Rao raised three issues on appeal: the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions, the exclusion of testimony regarding statements made to him by the scheme’s leader about legal vetting, and the calculation of the loss amount under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Fifth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court’s decisions. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Rao caused the submission of the fraudulent claims and that he knew about and authorized the use of his signature stamp. The court also held that the district court did not plainly err in excluding the testimony about legal vetting and did not err in calculating the intended loss amount. The Fifth Circuit affirmed Rao’s convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Rao" on Justia Law

Joseph Anthony Borino, as part of a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony (wire fraud) on July 8, 2021. He was sentenced to one year and one day of imprisonment on November 1, 2022. On March 30, 2023, the district court ordered restitution of $21,223,036.37 under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), to be paid jointly and severally with Denis Joachim, Borino’s employer and co-conspirator.The district court proceedings began with the indictment of Denis and Donna Joachim in August 2018, followed by Borino’s separate indictment in November 2019. Borino was charged with conspiracy to defraud the IRS, making false statements, and wire fraud. He later pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony in June 2021. The district court adopted the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSR) which attributed the entire loss of $25,543,340.78 to Borino, and scheduled a separate restitution hearing. At the restitution hearing, the court calculated the restitution amount based on the fees paid by the victims during the period of Borino’s offense, minus the claims paid by TTFG.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Borino’s appeal, where he challenged the restitution order on three grounds: the applicability of the MVRA to his offense, the proof of actual pecuniary loss to the victims, and the causation of the losses. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, holding that the MVRA applied to Borino’s misprision offense because it involved concealment of wire fraud, a crime committed by fraud or deceit. The court found that the government had sufficiently proven the victims’ actual losses and that Borino’s continuous concealment of the fraud directly and proximately caused the victims’ losses. The court concluded that the district court did not err in ordering restitution of $21,223,036.37. View "United States v. Borino" on Justia Law

In June 2022, Juan Jose Vega-Santos was charged with illegal reentry into the United States following removal, under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)–(b). He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. The district court sentenced him to 60 months in prison, an upward variance from the advisory guidelines range, and imposed three years of supervised release with special conditions, including a requirement to undergo a psychosexual evaluation and participate in sex offender treatment if recommended by an evaluator.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas imposed the special condition as part of Vega-Santos's supervised release due to his prior felony conviction for sexual intercourse with a minor. Vega-Santos did not challenge this condition in the district court. On appeal, he argued that the condition constituted an unlawful delegation of the district court’s sentencing authority and was impermissibly ambiguous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the special condition requiring Vega-Santos to participate in sex offender treatment if recommended by an evaluator constituted an unlawful delegation of judicial authority. The court noted that the imposition of a sentence, including the terms and conditions of supervised release, is a core judicial function that cannot be delegated. The court found that the district court's error was clear or obvious and affected Vega-Santos's substantial rights. The error also seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the special condition and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Vega-Santos" on Justia Law

Edgar Hermosillo Minor pled guilty to four drug charges in 2022, including importing and possessing methamphetamine and fentanyl with intent to distribute. His presentence report calculated a base offense level of 34, adjusted for his minimal role and acceptance of responsibility, but added five levels due to a career-offender enhancement based on three prior federal marijuana-related convictions from 2000 and 2010. This enhancement placed him in a sentencing range of 262 to 327 months, whereas without it, the range would have been 121 to 151 months. Minor objected to the enhancement, arguing that a 2018 amendment to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) excluded hemp from the definition of marijuana, making his prior convictions no longer qualify as "controlled substance offenses." The district court overruled his objection and applied the enhancement, sentencing him to 180 months.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas overruled Minor's objection and applied the career-offender enhancement based on the CSA's definition of marijuana at the time of his prior convictions. Despite this, the court imposed a downward variance, sentencing Minor to 180 months, which he timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the CSA's definition of "controlled substance" in effect at the time of sentencing for the current offense should be used to determine whether prior convictions qualify for the career-offender enhancement. The court found that the district court erred by applying the enhancement based on the outdated definition of marijuana. The court also concluded that the error was not harmless, as the district court did not explicitly state that it would impose the same sentence regardless of the correct Guidelines range. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for resentencing. View "USA v. Minor" on Justia Law

Parvez Qureshi was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and four counts of distribution of controlled substances. Qureshi, a physician, had partnered with Rubeena Ayesha, an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse, to operate a pain management clinic. The clinic saw a high volume of patients, many of whom paid cash for prescriptions of controlled substances like Norco and Oxycodone. The Government alleged that Qureshi pre-signed blank prescriptions, which Ayesha used to prescribe these substances when Qureshi was not present.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially tried Qureshi, resulting in a mistrial. In a subsequent trial, Qureshi was convicted on all counts. He was sentenced to sixty months for each count, to run concurrently. Qureshi appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were erroneous in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Ruan v. United States, which clarified the mens rea requirement for convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 841.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the jury instructions for the substantive counts under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) were erroneous because they did not require the jury to find that Qureshi knew he was acting in an unauthorized manner. This omission was not harmless, as Qureshi's knowledge was a contested issue at trial. However, the court held that the conspiracy instruction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 was not erroneous, as it required the jury to find that Qureshi knew the purpose of the agreement was to distribute controlled substances without authorization.The Fifth Circuit vacated Qureshi's convictions for the four substantive counts and remanded for a new trial on those counts. The court affirmed Qureshi's conspiracy conviction but vacated his sentence on all counts and remanded for resentencing on the conspiracy count. View "USA v. Qureshi" on Justia Law

In October 2022, Jose Guadalupe Hernandez Velasquez was found unlawfully present in the United States for the fifth time. Previously, in 2019, he had signed a written stipulation waiving his rights and agreeing to his removal, which led to his deportation. Upon his reentry in 2022, he was charged with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hernandez Velasquez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his waiver of rights in the 2019 removal was unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary, making the removal order fundamentally unfair.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied his motion to dismiss, placing the burden on Hernandez Velasquez to prove the invalidity of his waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. The court found that he did not meet this burden and also failed to satisfy the administrative exhaustion requirement of § 1326(d)(1).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that when the government produces a written and signed stipulation and waiver, the burden rests on the defendant to prove its invalidity. The court found that the district court's burden allocation was proper and that Hernandez Velasquez's waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The court also noted that even if the burden had been on the government, the outcome would not have changed, as the evidence overwhelmingly supported the validity of the waiver. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Hernandez Velasquez" on Justia Law

Devin Chaney pleaded guilty to two counts from an eleven-count indictment: Hobbs Act Robbery and Armed Bank Robbery. As part of his plea agreement, Chaney waived his right to appeal except for a sentence above the statutory maximum or to claim ineffective assistance of counsel. Chaney was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 due to prior convictions for controlled substance offenses. He received a sentence of 188 months for each count, to be served concurrently, followed by four years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay restitution. Chaney appealed, arguing that the district court improperly sentenced him as a career offender.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana determined that Chaney qualified as a career offender based on his prior convictions. Chaney objected, claiming that one of his prior convictions did not qualify as a predicate offense because Louisiana's definition of marijuana was broader than federal law. The district court overruled his objection and imposed the sentence. Chaney then appealed the sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The government moved to dismiss the appeal, citing the waiver-of-appeal provision in Chaney's plea agreement. The Fifth Circuit conducted a two-step inquiry to determine the validity of the waiver, concluding that Chaney knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that the waiver applied to his claims. The court noted that Chaney's sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum, and his waiver was explicit and unambiguous. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal, affirming that Chaney's waiver was enforceable. View "United States v. Chaney" on Justia Law