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

Many Defendants belonging to the "39ers" a New Orleans gang, were convicted of various RICO-related offenses. Ten Defendants appealed their convictions on multiple grounds. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the vast majority of Defendant's convictions. However, the court reversed most of the Defendants' Sec. 924 convictions related to using a firearm during or in furtherance of a crime of violence.The district court's jury instruction permitted the jury to convict on the Sec. 924 offenses if it found that the Defendants were guilty of aggravated RICO conspiracy or drug trafficking. However, under United States v. McClaren, 13 F.4th 386 (5th Cir. 2021), aggravated RICO conspiracy is not a crime of violence. Thus, the court reversed most of the Defendants' convictions under Sec. 924. View "USA v. Perry, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant and accomplices stole millions of dollars in a transcontinental business email compromise scheme. A jury convicted him of fraud, money laundering, and identity theft for his role in the operation. On appeal, Defendant challenged his sentence for the fraud and laundering convictions, arguing that the district court erred by including five enhancements when calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range. He argued that the district court should not have added two points to his offense level for a crime that involved sophisticated means. He further faulted the district court for applying a two-level enhancement for an offense involving "the possession or use of any . . . authentication feature." Finally, he claimed that the district court misapplied the four-level aggravating role enhancement.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and held that the district court did not err when including five enhancements when calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range. The court concluded that Defendant’s conduct falls within the definition of "sophisticated means." The court reasoned that he created at least forty fraudulent bank accounts in the names of real and fictitious persons and business entities to receive funds from his victims. He then transferred the funds between those accounts and eventually to accounts in his true name; together these actions constitute sophisticated means. Further, the scheme involved multiple participants across two continents and several states. The text of the Guideline and its commentary supports the application of the enhancement and confirms that the enhancement applies "regardless of whether the defendant actually was associated with the organization." View "USA v. Aderinoye" on Justia Law

A grand jury charged Defendant with two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. As his criminal case proceeded, medical examiners diagnosed Defendant with paranoid schizophrenia. Defendant moved to discontinue or modify his conditional release. The district court denied Defendant’s motion and gave a thorough explanation of its reasons for doing so. The district court also issued an order modifying Defendant’s conditions of release, which included an order requiring Defendant to receive monthly injections of Haldol at his previously prescribed dosage.   On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by denying his motion for unconditional release and by ordering his healthcare provider to administer psychiatrist medication at a dosage he finds neither acceptable nor necessary.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s request to discontinue or modify his conditional release. The court reasoned that reversal for clear error is appropriate only where “the entire evidence” leaves the reviewing court “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Here, the Government exhaustively recounted the testimony of two witnesses who lend considerable support to the district court’s factual findings. The court found that it is reasonable to defer to the district court’s superior knowledge of the defendant’s situation in cases where an insane defendant is released from custody under a medical regimen designed to promote his recovery and protect society. View "USA v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Defendant was involuntarily committed to the emergency room for protective custody after law enforcement found he was a danger to himself or others. He remained committed for 15 days. Two weeks later, Defendant was again committed, this time for 13 days. Several years later, in 2019, Defendant bought a firearm. In doing so, he answer negatively to the question asking if he'd ever been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution. Subsequently, Defendant attempted to buy firearms two other times. An ATF warned Defendant he was ineligible to purchase a firearm, which did not deter Defendant.Defendant was arrested and charged with three counts of making false statements to a federally licensed firearms dealer and two counts of possession of a firearm and ammunition. The indictment alleged only that Defendant had been adjudicated as a “mental defective”; it did not mention commitment. However, the district court instructed the jury it could find him guilty if he was adjudicated as a mental defective or if he had been committed.The Fifth Circuit found that the district court committed plain error when it instructed the jury that it could convict the defendant if it could he had been committed. The instructions allowed the jury to convict based on uncharged conduct. Thus, the Fifth Circuit reversed Defendant's convictions. View "USA v. Tucker" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested after he and a co-defendant attempted to sell narcotics to an undercover police officer. Defendant was indicted for distributing narcotics. During trial, at the conclusion of the government's evidence, Defendant unsuccessfully moved for judgment of acquittal. During jury deliberations, jurors sent six notes to the judge, several of which indicated they could not reach a unanimous decision. The district court eventually provided an Allen instruction, to which Defendant's attorney verbally expressed he had no objection. The jury ultimately convicted Defendant.Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the indictment, the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court's decision to provide an Allen instruction to the jury. Applying plain error review, the Fifth Circuit rejected each of Defendant's appellate issues, affirming his conviction.Regarding Defendant's Allen claim, the court held that Defendant waived his ability to challenge the issue on appeal because his attorney failed to object at the time it was issued. Although Defendant's waiver was through counsel, a defendant's attorney is his agent in the proceedings. The court noted that deciding whether to object to an Allen jury instruction is a tactical decision. View "USA v. Cabello" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. Section 1326. At sentencing, the judge included the following condition of probation: "If the probation officer determines that the defendant poses a risk to another person (including an organization), the probation officer may require the defendant to notify the person about the risk and the defendant shall comply with that instruction. The probation officer may contact the person and confirm that the defendant has notified the person about the risk." At sentencing, Defendant did not object to the condition, but later challenged the condition on appeal.The Fifth Circuit, reviewing for plain error, held that the condition was not an improper delegation of authority to probation officers. The court reasoned that Defendant's probation officer was not given the authority to determine whether Defendant was subject to the condition; only that the probation officer can determine when, where, and to whom Defendant must give notice. View "USA v. Mejia-Banegas" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of aggravated burglary, manslaughter, and second-degree battery in federal court and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA). Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), Petitioner sought permission to file a second Sec. 2254 petition. The court granted Petitioner's request, mentioning only his aggravated burglary and second-degree battery convictions. However, on remand to the district court, Petitioner collaterally attacked his manslaughter conviction, claiming it did not constitute a "violent felony" under the ACCA. The district court considered Petitioner's claim as it pertained to his manslaughter conviction and rejected it. Petitioner appealed.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit vacated the portion of the district court's order denying Petitioner's claims, and dismissed the claim as it pertains to the manslaughter conviction. The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Petitioner did not have the court's permission to challenge his manslaughter conviction on remand. View "USA v. Hanner" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to narcotics possession and at his sentencing hearing, the court stated that if Defendant were to return to this country, he would be required to report to the nearest probation office within 72 hours. A week later the district court entered a written judgment that included an immediate-reporting requirement. Defendant challenged the written judgment’s inclusion of the immediate-reporting requirement.     The Fifth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court’s judgment and affirmed the decision.   The court held that there is no material difference between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment. The court reasoned that at sentencing the Defendant heard he would have to report to the probation office if he reentered the country, and he said nothing. Therefore, Defendant cannot complain when the judgment later clarified the reporting obligation. The court explained that it has previously asked the district court to amend a written judgment’s immediate-reporting requirement to the orally announced 72-hour-reporting requirement. However, those decisions were non-binding, nonprecedential, and unpublished. Therefore, the court declined to follow them. View "USA v. Perez-Espinoza" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Appellant for capital murder in the death of a police officer. The Fifth Circuit rejected Appellant's last-minute efforts to stop the imposition of his sentence.The Fifth Circuit held that Appellant is unlikely to prevail on his request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”), and he is unlikely to succeed on his Sec. 1983 claim. In addressing habeas, the court rejected Appellant's request for COA on his future-dangerousness claim, and his request for COA on his Lackey claim. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of a stay of execution and dismissal of the 1983 claim and denied the COA.Here, Appellant argued his death sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it was based in part on the jury’s finding of a “probability that Appellant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.” The court explained that reasonable jurors would not find it debatable whether Sec. 2244(b)(1) barred this claim. Further, the court reasoned that it’s undebatable that this claim is procedurally defaulted. Additionally, the court held substantive meritlessness is an independent ground for refusing a COA on Plaintiff’s future-dangerousness claim. Finally, the court held that Plaintiff’s claim is not a method-of-execution challenge; it is a challenge to the validity of his death sentence. It is therefore not cognizable under Sec. 1983. View "Buntion v. Collier" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of seven counts of mail fraud. The pre-sentence report noted that Defendant had a criminal history category of 1 and that the offense level was 39, based on losses of $9,922,428.63. At sentencing, the prosecution conceded that the total loss amount should be reduced by $325,540.35. After applying reductions, the district court sentenced Defendant to 121 months in prison with three years of supervised release. The court also ordered restitution in the amount of $9,922,428.63.Defendant challenged his sentence on several grounds. The district court erred in calculating the total loss amount when it did not accept the prosecution’s concession of the $325,540.35 reduction. Had the district court reduced the total loss amount, the Guidelines would have reflected a lower sentencing range. Here, the district court sentenced Defendant near the bottom of the guideline range. Thus, because the recalculation of the total loss amount lowers the guideline range, the case was remanded for the court to resentence Defendant. View "USA v. Alfaro" on Justia Law