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

A jury found Defendant guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence.  Defendant challenged the denial of three pre-trial motions: leave to file untimely motions to suppress, its merits, and a motion for a continuance.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, including its order of forfeiture. The court explained that to show plain error, Defendant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious, which affects his substantial rights. With that showing, the court has the discretion to correct the error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.   Here, the court found no privacy interest was here invaded— information subject to the daily view of strollers and the community. Thus, Defendant failed to show that the district court clearly erred in not suppressing the video evidence.  Next, the court wrote that Defendant offered no proof that the affiant deliberately or recklessly falsified statements about the information from cooperating defendants to mislead the court. Therefore, Defendant cannot show that the district court plainly erred when it declined to suppress evidence from the search of his property.   Further, Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence because the district court did not consider the changing legal status of marijuana. Defendant has already received what he now requests: a downward variance of his sentence to account for the difference between marijuana and other drugs. View "USA v. Dennis" on Justia Law

Defendant owned and operated a healthcare clinic. Along with another provider, Defendant engaged in a scheme to fraudulently bill Medicare for home health services that were not properly authorized, not medically necessary, and, in some cases, not provided. Insiders testified to Defendant's role in the conspiracy, indicating she knew the home healthcare agencies were paying marketers to recruit patients. Defendant also told an undercover FBI agent she could show him how to make money by recruiting patients. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to 300 months in federal prison.Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence against her. However, the Fifth Circuit affirmed her conviction, finding that a rational jury could have concluded that Defendant knew about and willfully joined the conspiracy. Additionally, the court rejected Defendant's challenges to her sentence, finding that the district court did not commit a procedural error and that her sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "USA v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

An officer performed a traffic stop on Defendant in the middle of the night. Having been given reason to suspect that Defendant who revealed an aggravated robbery conviction, had a gun, the officer handcuffed him and asked where it was. Defendant answered, and the officer’s partner arrived later to find a .40 caliber pistol and .37 ounces of marijuana in Defendant’s backpack between the front seats of the van he drove. Before Defendant divulged that information, the officer did not provide Miranda warnings.   A grand jury indicted Defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant then moved to “suppress all statements [he made] in response to the officer’s questioning once he was in handcuffs.” The district court granted the suppression motion. The government filed an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s judgment and the trial has been continued pending resolution of the appeal.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment. The court explained that the admissibility of Defendant’s unwarned statements, therefore, depends on whether he was “in custody” as contemplated by Miranda at the time he offered them.   Here, based on the totality of the circumstances a reasonable person in Defendant’s position would not have equated the restraint on his freedom of movement with formal arrest. But even if Defendant could have reasonably thought that he was in custody for Miranda purposes after being handcuffed, the environment in which the officer questioned him was not tantamount to a station house interrogation as contemplated by Miranda. View "USA v. Coulter" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Defendant on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Defendant moved to suppress the revolver and ammo, arguing the officers unlawfully stopped him. At an evidentiary hearing, an officer testified for the government, and Defendant introduced bodycam footage from an officer who arrived on scene after the seizure, as well as photographs and maps of the area.   Defendant challenged only whether the officers had reasonable suspicion for the stop; he does not challenge the frisk. He argued the description of the wanted gang member was too general and the detail about the past flight from police on the bicycle was too “sparse” and potentially “stale.” The government relied on the description of the subject and the bicycle, the location, and the officers’ knowledge of gang activity in the area.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and vacated his conviction and sentence. The court held that the officers’ stop of Defendant was not supported by reasonable suspicion. This case involves an outstanding warrant—completed criminal activity—so the information the officers relied on must satisfy a higher level of specificity than if they were responding to a report of ongoing or very recent criminal activity.   Further, the court wrote it does not blindly accept officers’ reliance on information obtained through police channels; the government must substantiate the basis of the information. Here, the government has not established reasonable suspicion that could have been transferred between officers, the collective knowledge doctrine does not apply. View "USA v. Alvarez" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of sexually abusing a minor girl over a period of three years and conspiring to obstruct justice by destroying his laptop computer. Defendant appealed raising numerous arguments. The Fifth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court’s decision and affirmed.   Defendant argued that the federal prosecution violated double jeopardy because he was subjected to punitive pretrial bond conditions in state court before being tried and convicted in federal court. The court explained that the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause states that no person may be “twice put in jeopardy” “for the same offense.” Thus, the court held that law-of-the-case doctrine forecloses Defendant’s double jeopardy argument.   Further, Defendant argued that his constitutional rights were violated when he was prohibited from discovering certain evidence that purportedly showed the victim and others’ financial motives to lie. The court found that the relevant events do not establish that Defendant was denied a “meaningful opportunity” to present a complete defense.   Finally, the court reviewed the district court’s decision to exclude evidence as a sanction for violating a discovery rule or pretrial order for abuse of discretion. Aside from arguing that exclusion is never appropriate, Defendant does not contend that the district court abused its discretion when it excluded his medical records. Consequently, we treat the issue as waived and leave undisturbed the district court’s decision to exclude these documents. View "USA v. Wills" on Justia Law

In a criminal appeal, Defendant presented two issues. First, whether evidence discovered after a consent search of Defendant’s car should be suppressed because law enforcement stopped Morris without reasonable suspicion or overbore his free will to obtain consent to search his vehicle. Second, whether at sentencing the district court erred in holding that Defendant was ineligible for a minor role adjustment because the other participants in the crime had not been indicted or otherwise identified. 
 The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and remanded for reconsideration of his motion to suppress. The court wrote it was convinced that the sheriff’s deputies in the case effected a stop of Defendant under the Fourth Amendment. The court explained that because the district court held that Defendant was not stopped, it did not determine whether the deputies had reasonable suspicion to do so. Thus, the court’s decision is a determination that the district court must make in the first instance, as it usually involves assessing the credibility of witnesses and weighing this evidence under the totality of the circumstances. View "USA v. Morris" on Justia Law

Appellant challenged the district court’s 1) denial of his motion to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act, 2) imposition of a sentencing enhancement for reckless endangerment, and 3) adoption of the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) that treated two of his prior convictions as crimes of violence.   The Fifth Circuit rejected the first two grounds but vacated and remanded for resentencing in light of Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021), and United States v. Bates, 24 F.4th 1017 (5th Cir. 2022). The court explained that the district court correctly interpreted the Speedy Trial Act. However, the court was plainly wrong in its application of U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(a)(3). It is plain, post-Borden, that applying Section 2K2.1(a)(3) to the convictions at issue was in error.   Further, applying Section 2K2.1(a)(3) affected Appellant’s substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings. Without the two qualifying prior convictions for crimes of violence, Appellant maintains that his base offense level would drop from 22 to 20 under Section 2K2.1(a)(4)(B), and that he would receive at least one less criminal history point, which would result in a criminal history category of IV. 22 USSG Section 4A1.1(e), 4A1.2(a)(2). View "USA v. Kelley" on Justia Law

After a man was found incompetent to stand trial, and his civil commitment proceeding was dismissed, he stayed in jail for six more years. Plaintiff, the man’s guardian, filed suit against the District Attorney, Sheriffs, and Clay County under Section 1983, challenging the man’s years-long detention.   The district court first dismissed the District Attorney from the case. However, the court determined that the Sheriffs were not entitled to qualified immunity on the detention claim because their constitutional violations were obvious. It denied summary judgment to Clay County too, finding that there was strong evidence that the Sheriffs were final policymakers for the county.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed Clay County’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to the Sheriffs.  The court first held that it lacked jurisdiction over the ruling keeping Clay County in the case. The Court explained that, unlike the Sheriffs, municipalities do not enjoy immunity. Further, the court wrote it did not have pendent party jurisdiction over Clay County. Defendants assume that if Clay County’s liability is “inextricably intertwined” with that of the individual officers, that provides “support [for] pendent appellate jurisdiction.” But the court has never permitted pendent party (as opposed to pendent claim) interlocutory jurisdiction.   Further, taking the evidence in Plaintiff’s favor, the Sheriffs violated the man’s due process right by detaining him for six years in violation of the commit-or-release rule and the circuit court’s order enforcing that rule. The court explained that it was clearly established that the Sheriffs could be liable for a violation of the man’s clearly established due process right. View "Harris v. Clay County, MS" on Justia Law

Defendant, seeking habeas relief, alleged that prosecutors unconstitutionally suppressed a document that would have aided his case and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial and his direct appeal.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate that any of his habeas claims merit relief. Defendant first asserted that the prosecution violated his Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by suppressing FD-302 evidence favorable to his case. The court wrote that the impeachment value of the 302 is insufficient to undermine confidence in the trial and the jury’s verdict, such that the 302 is not material, and Defendant’s Brady claim therefore fails.   Next, because none of the prosecutor’s statements, taken in context, constitute improper vouching, Defendant cannot argue that his trial counsel should have objected to them and was ineffective for not doing so. And even if the prosecution acted improperly as to some of its closing remarks, Defendant fails to show how any strategic decision on his counsel’s part not to object rises to ineffective assistance. View "USA v. Valas" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). The jury instructions did not specify that the jury must find that Defendant knew he was a felon when he possessed a firearm. After Defendant’s conviction and sentencing, the Supreme Court decided in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), that knowledge of felony status is an essential element of that offense. The following year, Defendant filed a motion with the district court under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, arguing that because of Rehaif the court should vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Rehaif did not establish a new right that applies retroactively as required for such collateral actions.   The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded. The court considered whether in Rehaif the Supreme Court newly recognized a right and whether that right has been made retroactive to cases on collateral review. The court concluded that the Supreme Court did indeed recognize a new right—the defendant’s right to have the Government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of his felony status when he possessed a firearm.Next, the court wrote, that rule applies retroactively. The Supreme Court has explained that “[n]ew substantive rules generally apply retroactively” to finalized convictions. Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 351 (2004). The court explained that remand is appropriate because the district court has not addressed procedural default or the merits of Defendant’s claim. View "USA v. Kelley" on Justia Law