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

In an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, two defendants, Robert Brumfield and Jeremy Esteves, convicted for their roles in a 2013 armed truck robbery in New Orleans, challenged the district court's denial of their motion for a new trial. This motion was based on their claim that the Government had suppressed evidence related to the credibility of two witnesses, which they argued violated the rules established in Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. In addition, Brumfield separately claimed that the Government failed to correct false testimony and also appealed his sentence.The Court found that the new evidence was not material in Brumfield's case, his claim of false testimony was without merit, and his sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. However, the Court concluded that the new evidence was material as to Esteves, and thus his Brady claim required further consideration by the district court. Consequently, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the case to the district court for further consideration of Esteves’s Brady claim. View "USA v. Brumfield" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Palma L. Jefferson Jr.'s suppression motions and his sentence related to his conviction for various drug trafficking charges, and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The case arose after an anonymous tip led to a police investigation of Jefferson. The police did not find the described vehicle transporting drugs, but the tipster provided additional information leading to Jefferson's residence. The tipster provided live directions via video chat, allowing the police to locate Jefferson's apartment. When police approached Jefferson, they claimed he admitted to having cocaine and a firearm in his apartment, which led to his arrest.Jefferson challenged the legality of his arrest, the search of his apartment, and the use of his initial confession. He argued that his initial stop by the police amounted to a de facto arrest without probable cause and that the officers unlawfully entered and searched his apartment without a warrant. He further argued that his confession, if made, was unlawfully obtained. Jefferson also challenged the calculation of drug quantities and the application of a dangerous weapon enhancement in his sentence.However, the court found that Jefferson's initial stop by the police was an investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, not a de facto arrest. Even if the officers unlawfully entered and searched his apartment, the evidence obtained could still be admitted under the independent source doctrine, as it could be obtained through other lawful means. The court also upheld the drug quantity calculation and dangerous weapon enhancement in Jefferson's sentence. View "USA v. Jefferson" on Justia Law

Between November 2020 and February 2021, Adam Joseph Schultz and his co-conspirators engaged in a scheme to fraudulently obtain vehicles using stolen login credentials from car dealerships. They purchased and paid for these vehicles with the dealerships' money and then used the purchase documents to pick up the vehicles. Schultz pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He was sentenced to 120 months in prison, which he appealed. This case was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.Schultz's appeal was based on two claims: first, that his April 2021 offense of being stopped while driving a stolen vehicle should have been classified as relevant conduct rather than criminal history, and second, he should have received a reduction for a partially completed offense under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He argued that the April 2021 offense shared similarities with the offense he was convicted for and that the partially completed offense reduction should apply because he intended a larger offense for which he was not charged.The court rejected both of Schultz's arguments. The court reasoned that the April 2021 offense was not similar enough to the offense of conviction to be classified as relevant conduct, and that the partially completed offense reduction did not apply because Schultz had completed all elements of the charged crime. The court affirmed Schultz's sentence, but remanded the case to the district court to clarify a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and written judgment regarding whether the sentence would run concurrently or consecutively with any sentences imposed in his state cases. View "USA v. Schultz" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction against a Texas state prosecutor, Lucas Babin, who had initiated criminal charges against Netflix for promoting child pornography through its film, Cuties. The court found that Babin had acted in bad faith, as he multiplied the initial indictment into four after Netflix asserted its First Amendment right, selectively presented evidence to the grand jury, and charged Netflix for a scene that involved an adult actress. The court rejected Babin's argument that the indictments were validated by grand juries, finding that Babin's selective presentation of evidence undermined the independence of the grand juries. The court also noted that Netflix had shown that the prosecution was likely a bad faith prosecution, which constituted an irreparable injury, and that an injunction protecting First Amendment rights was in the public interest. The court ruled that these factors justified the district court's decision not to abstain under the Younger doctrine, which generally requires federal courts to refrain from interfering in ongoing state proceedings. View "Netflix v. Babin" on Justia Law

In an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Erma Wilson sought to overturn the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas which dismissed her federal civil rights suit against Midland County, Texas, and individuals Ralph Petty and Albert Schorre. Wilson was convicted of cocaine possession 22 years prior and she maintained her innocence, claiming that the cocaine found was not hers. The case revolved around her claim that she was denied due process since the assistant district attorney in her case, Ralph Petty, was also moonlighting as a law clerk for the judge presiding over her trial. Wilson was sentenced to eight years of community supervision which derailed her dream of becoming a nurse.Upon review, the Fifth Circuit held that Wilson's claim is barred by the "favorable termination" rule from Heck v. Humphrey. The rule states that a convicted party cannot seek § 1983 damages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment without first showing that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on appeal or otherwise declared invalid. The court noted that Petty’s dual role indeed constituted a conflict of interest that violated Wilson's constitutional right to a fair trial. However, under the court's precedent, noncustodial plaintiffs, such as Wilson, must meet the favorable-termination requirement, even if it’s practically impossible for them to do so. The court found that it was bound by prior circuit precedent and could only affirm the lower court's decision. The court noted that only the en banc court or the United States Supreme Court could deliver a different result. The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. View "Wilson v. Midland County" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the appellant, Brian Jackson, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his guilty plea for attempted interference with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Jackson and two co-conspirators had attempted to rob a convenience store, and in the course of the incident, the store was closed for about three hours, causing it to lose $600 in potential earnings. Jackson argued that the record did not sufficiently show that the attempted robbery impacted interstate commerce.The court, however, ruled that Jackson's plea agreement contained sufficient factual admissions to satisfy the Hobbs Act’s commerce element. It noted that Jackson admitted to attempting to rob the store with the intent to affect interstate commerce. In addition, the court found that the temporary closure of the store resulting from the attempted robbery affected interstate commerce, as it depleted the store's assets by $600, impeding its ability to engage in future interstate commerce. The court also inferred from the record that the store likely dealt in goods originating from outside Texas and therefore engaged in interstate commerce.Jackson's argument that he would not have pled guilty if he had known the facts were insufficient under the commerce element was dismissed by the court. The court noted that Jackson had pled guilty despite believing that the facts were insufficient to support the commerce prong, and he had admitted that his purpose in pleading guilty was to avoid potential conviction under a statute carrying longer sentences.The court thus found no reversible error and affirmed the lower court's decision. View "USA v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The case involves James Pierre, the sole doctor at a Houston pill mill, who was convicted of multiple federal drug crimes. He was charged with seven counts of unlawfully distributing and dispensing controlled substances and one count of conspiring to do the same. Pierre's defense argued that he had been deceived by the clinic's employees and only provided medicine for people he believed were in pain. However, the jury did not believe him and he was convicted on all counts.Pierre appealed his conviction on two grounds: that the district court erred in admitting improper profiling evidence and in instructing the jury. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, however, found no reversible error and affirmed the conviction. The court held that the testimony about the mill operations was not profiling evidence, as it helped the jury understand the evidence. The court also held that any error in the jury instructions did not affect Pierre's substantial rights, as there was overwhelming evidence to prove that Pierre knew the prescriptions he was writing were medically unauthorized. View "USA v. Pierre" on Justia Law

Derrick Durrell Jones, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Jones argued that the law under which he was convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), was unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment. Addressing the Commerce Clause argument, the court stated that their circuit precedent has consistently upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), and that Jones had not presented any Supreme Court decisions that had expressly overruled this.In response to the Second Amendment argument, the court noted that Jones' challenge came in light of a new test for assessing the constitutionality of a statute under the Second Amendment as set forth by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. However, the court pointed out that it had previously held that § 922(g)(1) did not violate the Second Amendment, and a concurring opinion in Bruen had stated that the decision should not cast doubt on prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons. The court also observed that there was no binding precedent holding that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional, and that two other federal circuits have reached conflicting conclusions on the issue.Given these considerations, the court concluded that Jones had failed to demonstrate that the district court’s application of § 922(g)(1) constituted clear or obvious error, and thus affirmed the decision of the lower court. View "USA v. Jones" on Justia Law

This case involves Rolando Villarreal who pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. His sentence was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) due to a prior burglary and two prior aggravated assaults. Villarreal challenged the enhancement under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his sentence was improperly enhanced under the ACCA's elements or force clause based on the predicate offense that allowed conviction for reckless conduct, a claim subsequently termed a "Borden claim."The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Villarreal did assert a Borden claim in his § 2255 motion and that his sentence was "in excess of the maximum authorized by law." This was due to the fact that, after the ruling in Borden v. United States, the convictions under the relevant aggravated assault statute could not constitute predicate offenses under the ACCA as they do not require the "physical use of force against the person of another."As a result, the Court of Appeals vacated Villarreal’s sentence and remanded the case back to the district court with instructions to resentence Villarreal without consideration of the ACCA. View "USA v. Villarreal" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Sterling Robinson, was convicted by a jury on one count of possessing a firearm or ammunition as a convicted felon and one count of attempted obstruction of a federal proceeding. He appealed these convictions on the grounds of sufficiency challenges, errors relating to evidence admitted at trial, the trial court's jury instructions, and the prosecutor's remarks during opening and closing arguments. Robinson also appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court misunderstood its authority to order that his sentence run concurrently with another federal sentence.The case originated from an incident where Robinson's ex-girlfriend, Candace Anderson, accused him of shooting at her car while her nine-year-old son was inside. After the incident, Robinson repeatedly urged Anderson to change her story during phone calls from jail.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed Robinson's convictions, stating that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Robinson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the stated charges. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its admission of evidence, the failure to give an impeachment instruction, or any improper remarks by the prosecutor.However, the court agreed with Robinson's argument that the district court misunderstood its sentencing authority. The district court initially stated that Robinson’s sentence would run concurrently with a sentence imposed upon his revocation of supervised release, but later retracted this after the government pointed out that another judge had ordered the sentences to run consecutively. The appellate court clarified that one district court has no authority to instruct another district court on how to impose its sentence for a different offense in a different case. As a result, the court vacated Robinson’s term of imprisonment and remanded the case for a narrow resentencing limited to the sole issue of whether Robinson’s prison sentence in this case should run concurrently or consecutively with his other federal sentence. View "USA v. Robinson" on Justia Law