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

After defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, the district court sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment and a 5-year term of supervised release. The written judgment listed ten statutorily mandated conditions of supervised release, as well as seventeen conditions from a district-wide standing order that the district court did not mention at sentencing.The parties agree that the district court's judgment conflicts with the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). Diggles held that supervised-release conditions imposed by statute need not be pronounced orally at sentencing because any objection to them would be futile, but that discretionary conditions must be orally pronounced in the defendant’s presence at sentencing so that he has an opportunity to object. The court agreed with the parties that defendant did not have an opportunity to object to the seventeen conditions mentioned in the district court's standing order but unmentioned at sentencing. The court concluded that limited remand would be appropriate, granted the government's motion to do so, and denied as moot the government's alternative unopposed motion for extension to file its brief upon the denial of remand. View "United States v. Braddy" on Justia Law

Ward pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. In February 2018, the district court sentenced Ward to 200 months of imprisonment. Ward unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief. In March 2020, through counsel, Ward sent a request for compassionate release to the warden, claiming that her kidney failure, other medical problems, and vulnerability to COVID-19 constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. In May 2020, the Bureau of Prisons denied her request because Ward’s “medical condition has not been determined to be terminal within eighteen months nor end of life trajectory.”In July 2020, after exhausting her administrative remedies, Ward sought relief under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that compassionate release would be consistent with Sentencing Guideline 1B1.13 and that the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors favor a reduction. Ward filed her medical records, and an expert’s report that her kidney disease put her “at higher risk for developing severe illness, kidney failure, or death if she becomes infected with the coronavirus.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Ward’s motion. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ward’s motion based on arguments not advanced by the government. Motions for compassionate release are inherently discretionary. The district court had the authority to consider Section 3553(a)'s sentencing factors. View "Ward v. United States" on Justia Law

In this consolidated civil rights action, plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendant violated their Fourth Amendment rights by using false statements to secure a search warrant. The case arises out of a criminal investigation into plaintiffs by detectives of the Williamson County Sheriff's Office.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for qualified immunity and concluded that defendant is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' Franks claims as there was no constitutional violation. Even after setting aside the allegedly false statements at issue, the court concluded that there are similar facts set forth in the affidavit that establish probable cause to search the residence. Therefore, the court found that, with the allegedly false statements excised, the affidavit's remaining content is enough to establish probable cause. View "Davis v. Hodgkiss" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and life sentence for sex trafficking a minor and conspiracy to sex traffic a minor. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's substantive and conspiracy conviction; any evidence in admitting rap videos was harmless; and there was no clear error in imposing a four-level sentencing enhancement for defendant's leadership role in the offense under USSG 3B1.1(a). View "United States v. Sims" on Justia Law

Dr. Narang and Moparty were convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1349; Health Care Fraud, section 1347, and Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity, section 1957. Narang is an internist who practiced at his Texas self-owned clinic, North Cypress. Moparty co-owned Red Oak Hospital and served as an administrator for Trinity Health Network, which provided staffing and administrative services to health care entities. Narang ordered unnecessary medical tests for patients and then authorized Moparty to bill for these tests at the higher hospital rate even though these patients were seen and treated at Narang’s North Cypress office. The indictment alleged that this scheme resulted in fraudulent billing of over $20 million to Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, and Cigna. Those companies paid Moparty at least $3.2 million in reimbursement for those claims which he allegedly split with Narang through a series of financial transactions.The court sentenced Moparty to 108 months and Narang to 121 months of imprisonment, with joint and several liability for $2,621,999.04 in restitution. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and finding that, although the government made repeated errors, those errors did not warrant reversal. View "United States v. Moparty" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to three drug distribution charges and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sufficiency of the factual basis to support the conspiracy charge. In this case, there was no error, let alone plain error that affected defendant's substantial rights where the evidence found at his home, along with his statements to law enforcement, clearly show that he was involved in a drug distribution conspiracy. However, the court remanded for the limited purpose to allow the district court to amend the written judgment to conform to the oral sentence. View "United States v. Escajeda" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for detonating a bomb outside a church's administrative building under 18 U.S.C. 844(i), which requires that the building damaged by fire or explosion be used in or influence interstate commerce. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the church's administrative building met the statute's affecting-interstate-commerce requirement because it housed the offices that coordinated the rental of the church's facilities to outside parties and the church's tuition-based childcare programs. In this case, the church's interstate connections are direct, regular, and substantial. View "United States v. Torres" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for conspiring to possess methamphetamine. In this case, the district court imposed special conditions of release and temporarily denied defendant federal benefits—even though the plea agreement did not mention those aspects of sentencing.The court concluded that the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in imposing a five-year ineligibility for federal benefits or special conditions of supervised release where the parties did not form any agreement regarding ineligibility or special conditions. The court explained that, where an agreement is silent about a condition, it provides no evidence that the government promised or that defendant bargained for the relevant condition. Therefore, the silence in defendant's plea agreement did not cabin the district court's discretion regarding ineligibility or special conditions. The court also concluded that defendant's appeal waiver bars her contention that the district court misapplied 21 U.S.C. 862. View "United States v. Butler" on Justia Law

Aguirre-Rivera was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least one kilogram of heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(i), and 846. The verdict form indicated a general verdict of “Guilty” but, to a question asking, “Do you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the scope of the conspiracy involved at least one kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin?” The jury answered, “No.” The PSR recommended a range of 151-188 months of imprisonment, erroneously stating that Aguirre-Rivera’s offense was “Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute 100 Grams or More of Heroin,” 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846—an offense that carries a statutory minimum of five years of imprisonment. At Aguirre-Rivera’s sentencing hearing, the court reiterated that Aguirre-Rivera was “convicted of the offense of conspiracy to possess heroin with the intent to distribute, the weight of which was 100 grams or more,” overruled Aguirre-Rivera’s objections to the PSR, granted a minor role reduction, resulting in a Guidelines range of 97-121 months, then sentenced Aguirre-Rivera to 60 months' imprisonment.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Aguirre-Rivera’s motion for judgment of acquittal, vacated his sentence, and remanded. Because the drug quantity is not a formal element of the conspiracy offense, the jury’s answer regarding the quantity involved negated only the sentencing enhancement under section 841(b), not the general guilty verdict. View "United States v. Aguirre-Rivera" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Petitioner claims that the victim's parents were opposed to him receiving the death penalty and conveyed that opposition to the prosecutors prior to trial. Nevertheless, despite knowing this, the prosecutors stated during closing argument at the punishment phase of trial that all of the victim's family and everyone that loved him believed that the death penalty was appropriate. Petitioner unsuccessfully sought habeas relief in state court and subsequently in federal court.The Fifth Circuit concluded that petitioner is required to obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's dismissal of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion; the court declined to issue a COA; and the court declined to grant petitioner's motion invoking the All Writs Act. The court explained that petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion is ultimately an effort to advance "a new ground for relief" that was not contained in his initial federal habeas petition rather than an effort to redress a procedural defect in his initial federal habeas proceedings. Furthermore, the district court did not err in concluding that petitioner's motion invoking the All Writs Act should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because 28 U.S.C. 2254 is the proper avenue for him to seek relief. The court affirmed the district court's order transferring petitioner's new section 2254 petition to this court as a second or successive petition within the meaning of section 2244(b) and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court's order denying compensation to petitioner's counsel for their work on his successive state habeas proceedings. View "Storey v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law