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

The Fifth Circuit concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for possessing a gun in furtherance of a drug trafficking conspiracy. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction. However, the court vacated the forfeiture award, concluding that forfeiture was plainly erroneous under Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017), because it imposed joint and several liability for proceeds defendant did not personally obtain. View "United States v. Moya" on Justia Law

Gray claims that officers came to his cell, attacked Gray without provocation, took him to a shower, where, despite complying with all orders, he was sprayed with a chemical agent, and passed out. Upon waking up, he was placed in restraints and dragged to a transportation van. Officers continued to beat him. Gray’s injuries included a broken nose and a bruised kidney. These allegations are contradicted by the disciplinary reports indicating that officers went to Gray’s cell for a targeted search. Gray was intoxicated. There was vomit on the floor and Gray failed to answer questions. The officers moved Gray to the shower area, where he resisted by kicking and spitting, necessitating the use of a chemical agent to gain compliance. He knocked a radio from an officer's belt, breaking it. The prison disciplinary board found Gray guilty of intoxication, defiance, aggravated disobedience, property destruction, and having synthetic marihuana in his cell. Gray sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983.The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit vacated in part. Gray’s claims cannot be deemed to be Heck-barred because it is impossible to know which of his allegations might necessarily contradict his disciplinary convictions. The allegations of excessive force after Gray left the shower area were properly dismissed because Gray failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. 1997e. View "Gray v. White" on Justia Law

Santos alleges that he witnessed six prison officers beating another inmate. Santos intervened. He claims that he was then knocked to the ground, hit, kicked, choked, handcuffed, and dragged so that his head hit poles. He was then placed in a shower cell, where Captain Wells sprayed him in the face, genitals, and anus with a chemical agent. Wells allegedly cut Santos with a knife and threatened to kill him. Santos was ultimately transferred to a medical center where, he alleges, he was denied adequate attention. According to prison officials, Santos physically attacked them. Despite initially being restrained, he hit Wells hard enough to break his dentures. His actions necessitated the use of a chemical agent to gain compliance. A prison disciplinary board concluded that Santos was guilty of defiance, aggravated disobedience, property destruction, and unauthorized area.Santos sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment, determining that Santos’s claims were barred by “Heck” because prison disciplinary reports contradicted Santos’s allegations. The Fifth Circuit upheld the decision to admit the disciplinary reports, rejecting a hearsay argument, but remanded with regard to the application of Heck. The reports were offered to demonstrate that the disciplinary board found Santos guilty, not to prove the truth of the assertions. Whether the board’s findings related to the assault on Wells bar the corresponding claims by Santos must be determined by a fact-specific analysis. View "Santos v. White" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted the government's motion for summary affirmance, denied the government's alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief, and affirmed the district court's judgment. Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 50 months in prison based on the ten-year maximum because of his prior felony conviction. Defendant argues that the enhancement of his sentence based on the prior felony is unconstitutional because it is based on facts neither alleged in his indictment nor proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. However, defendant concedes that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 239-47 (1998). View "United States v. Garza-De La Cruz" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 2016 motion for post-conviction relief based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. In this case, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The court concluded that defendant failed to brief claims concerning the effectiveness of his trial counsel and has therefore abandoned those claims. In regard to defendant's claim that trial counsel failed to advise him before he entered into the plea agreement that he could be subject to a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence under the ACCA, defendant did not present this claim to the district court, and he neither sought nor obtained a certificate of appealability on the issue.In regard to defendant's sentencing, he contends that the collateral-review waiver does not bar his challenge to his sentence because he reserved his right to appeal a sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum. The government counters that waiver only reserved the right to appeal, not collaterally attack, a sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum. The court concluded that resolution of the waiver issue would be more difficult than resolving whether defendant's state convictions were serious drug offenses. Applying this alternative course, the court concluded that defendant's convictions under La. R.S. 40:966(A) for possession with intent to distribute are serious drug offenses for the purpose of sentence enhancement under the ACCA. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Barlow" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 240-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The court concluded that each of defendant's arguments that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines fails because any supposed error was harmless. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did in fact consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and defendant's contentions to the contrary lack merit. View "United States v. Rebulloza" on Justia Law

Kapordelis notified the prison medical unit that he broke his CPAP mask. After Kapordelis twice refused to leave the medical unit, an incident report was filed, including charges for destroying, altering, or damaging government property in excess of $100, 28 C.F.R. 541.3(b). Kapordelis contended that he did not deliberately break the mask. The prison's physician and a CPAP representative indicated that the mask was unlikely to break accidentally. The Discipline Hearing Officer sustained the charge and sanctioned Kapordelis with a loss of 27 days of good conduct time. Kapordelis administratively appealed, claiming that the broken part was the plastic “flexible spacebar,” which is “designed to bend when the mask is removed” and that replacing the spacebar “would likely cost less than $20.” Kapordelis’s administrative appeal was denied.Kapordelis filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2241, asserting that his due process rights were violated because no evidence was presented that he intentionally destroyed his CPAP mask. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his petition. Kapordelis’s admission that the mask broke in his possession, coupled with the statements from the CPAP representative and the doctor, were sufficient to support the disciplinary conviction under the “some evidence” standard and there was “some evidence” to support the finding that Kapordelis caused damage in excess of $100. View "Kapordelis v. Myers" on Justia Law

In 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed Davis’s convictions for health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud because the convictions were based on insufficient evidence. Davis had been incarcerated for approximately one year before the reversal. Davis sought a certificate of innocence arguing that she fulfilled the requirements in 28 U.S.C. 2513 (Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Statute) and, in the alternative, that the statute is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Nelson v. Colorado.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Davis’s motion. Under the Statute, Davis had to prove that she “did not commit any of the acts charged” and that she “did not by misconduct or neglect cause or bring about [her] own prosecution.” The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Davis did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she “did not commit any of the acts charged.” The 2018 decision “went no further than concluding that the government did not implicate Davis in the scheme with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Nelson is inapplicable because it did not involve a request for compensation. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Contreras-Rojas appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry, arguing that the enhancement of his sentence under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1) is unconstitutional because the fact of a prior conviction was neither found by a jury nor alleged in the indictment.The Fifth Circuit granted summary affirmance. The Supreme Court’s 1998 “Almendarez-Torres” decision held that a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement. The Fifth Circuit reiterated that “[i]n the future, barring new developments in Supreme Court jurisprudence, arguments seeking reconsideration of Almendarez-Torres will be viewed with skepticism.” View "United States v. Contreras-Rojas" on Justia Law

Officers executing a search warrant at Wood’s residence found Sincleair, Wood, Ilczyszyn, and Markezinis, and Blackman sitting on a couch smoking methamphetamine. The officers discovered less than two ounces of methamphetamine in Wood’s residence; they found a firearm on a table near the couch but did not determine who owned it.Sincleair pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, without a plea agreement. The PSR held Sincleair accountable for conspiring with Kuhn and Wilbur to possess with intent to distribute 26,166.3 kilograms of methamphetamine and GHB. He was not held accountable for the methamphetamine seized from Wood’s residence because it could have been “double counting" what he received from Kuhn. The PSR recommended a two-level firearm possession enhancement, U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1). Sincleair objected, arguing that his presence at Wood’s house was not related to the drug conspiracy to which he pleaded guilty--he was at Wood’s home to engage in drug use, not drug trafficking. The firearm was confirmed to be owned by and registered to Wood. A PSR addendum explained that the enhancement was appropriate because Sincleair was Ilczyszyn’s source of supply and was present for the drug transaction between Ilczyszyn and Wood.The district court adopted the PSR and sentenced Sincleair to 210 months' imprisonment. The Fifth Circuit vacated. If, on remand, the district court applies the firearm enhancement, “it should make the appropriate findings and state plainly the basis for its decision.” View "United States v. Sincleair" on Justia Law