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

Defendant was federally charged with various child pornography offenses. However, the district court found him incompetent and committed the defendant for evaluation and treatment. The defendant was released to live with his mother and, shortly thereafter, regained competency. However, before trial, the defendant was again deemed incompetent. The district court committed the defendant to a second term of competency-restoration treatment.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order committed the defendant to a second term of competency-restoration. While it is a violation of due process to try an incompetent person for a crime, 18 U.S.C. 4241(a) allows the court to commit an incompetent defendant to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization and treatment for a reasonable period of time, but not to exceed four months. A defendant can be committed for a second term of hospitalization, provided the court finds there is a substantial probability the defendant will regain competency during that time. However, if the medical facility treating the defendant certifies he has regained competency, the court must hold a hearing.The Fifth Circuit rejected the defendant's claim that once the medical facility certified he was competent, he could only be subject to civil commitment. Section 4241(a) allows for two commitment periods. The hospital warden's certification of the defendant's competency does not affect the district court's ability to order a second period of commitment. View "USA v. Ceasar" on Justia Law

While the defendant was a pain-management doctor, he reached an agreement with a pharmacist (“MM”). Per the agreement, MM would create a boilerplate prescription pad designed to assist the defendant in prescribing unnecessary medication. Second, the defendant signed an incomplete form, and third, his employee would step in and complete administrative work before faxing the form to MM. MM would then complete the form for fraudulent insurance reimbursement.The Government brought an eight-count indictment against the defendant. The jury acquitted him on Counts 1–7, but it hung on Count 8. He moved to dismiss Count 8 on double-jeopardy grounds. The defendant must show that the jury necessarily found some fact, and this fact must be an essential element of a retrial. The court reasoned that the defendant failed to meet this because his participation isn’t a necessary element of the Count 8 offense. Defendant next argues that the Government cannot retry him without broadening the indictment. However, the defendant moved to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds, not on the grounds of constructive amendment or variance. Defendant argued only that the collateral-estoppel portion of the Double Jeopardy Clause imposes a total bar to retrial. Even if the defendant asked the district court to exclude a particular argument, the court does not have the authority to review that decision. View "USA v. Auzenne" on Justia Law

Following a guilty plea, Defendant was convicted of transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain. In Defendant’s Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) the probation officer recommended a total offense level of 17. This included a three-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. Sec. 2L1.1(b)(6)) for “intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person.” The basis of the proposed enhancement was the fact that there were nine people in Defendant’s seven-person vehicle at the time he was arrested.The district court rejected Defendant’s challenge to the enhancement and sentenced Defendant to 24 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit first held that assessing the district court’s interpretation of the guidelines de novo review is appropriate. Moving on to the district court’s application of Sec. 2L1.1(b)(6)), the court found the evidence insufficient to apply the reckless endangerment enhancement. Without additional aggravating factors, nonsubstantial overcrowding alone is not enough to justify the application of Sec. 2L1.1(b)(6)). View "USA v. Castelo-Palma" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against Williamson County, Texas (“County”), alleging that county prosecutors denied him due process secured by the Fourteenth Amendment by lying to his counsel during plea negotiations, misconduct caused by the County’s “closed-file” policy. Appellant alleged that both his Brady and due process claims were enabled by the county’s closed-file policy, which prevented his attorneys from examining evidence, leading him to involuntarily plead guilty. The circuit court reasoned that they could not conclude that the closed-file policy caused the prosecutors to lie. Thus he failed to create a triable issue on the causal connection demanded by Monell. Further, the court held that the appellant’s Brady claim is foreclosed. They reasoned that this court’s precedent has consistently held that Brady focused on the integrity of trials and did not reach pre-trial guilty pleas. The circuit court affirmed the magistrate’s grant of summary judgment as there is no showing that a county policy was the force behind the appellant’s constitutional violation argument. View "Mansfield v. Williamson Cty" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence as an armed career criminal pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. The district court treated defendant's Texas aggravated robbery conviction and two Texas burglary-of-a-habitation convictions as the violent felonies compelling the enhanced sentence. Defendant contends that it was unconstitutional for the district court to apply the law as it existed when he was sentenced rather than when he committed the crime.The court concluded that the district court not violate due process by counting defendant's burglary convictions as violent felonies. The court explained that classifying Texas burglary of a habitation as a violent felony is not "clearly at variance" with the ACCA's text; nor was counting defendant's burglary convictions as violent felonies "unexpected" in light of precedent. The court also concluded that defendant's aggravated robbery conviction qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA's elements clause. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The government appealed the pretrial exclusion of certain evidence of lawyer Jason Williams's tax history from the years predating the charged conduct. Williams was indicted for lying on his taxes and failing to report large cash transactions to the IRS. In this case, the district court admitted some evidence, excluded other evidence, and deferred certain rulings until it had the benefit of the context that trial provides. For the rulings it did make, the district court reserved the right to revisit those decisions at trial.The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in concluding that the evidence was improper "other act" evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and, alternatively, inadmissible under the Rule 403 balancing test. The court noted the difficulties of making Rule 404(b) and 403 assessments in the vacuum of pretrial review and concluded that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence based on what it knew at that time. View "United States v. Burdett" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for conspiring to possess firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying an enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because defendant's crime of conviction was distinct from the crime used to support the application of the (b)(6)(B) enhancement. In this case, defendant was convicted for conspiring to possess guns (i.e., make straw purchases) to help drug dealers, but defendant's sentence was enhanced under (b)(6)(B) because the straw purchases were used to protect or aid in the drug trafficking activity of the distributors. Therefore, the other felony offense for (b)(6)(B) purposes was the drug dealing conspiracy of the distributors, which was distinct from defendant's.The court also concluded that the district court did not plainly err by applying both the section 2K2.1(b)(5) and (b)(6)(B) enhances as the district court did not apply the enhancements based on the same offense, but instead enhanced defendant's sentence to reflect his involvement in two distinct offenses. View "United States v. Singletary" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a risk-notification condition of supervised release. Defendant contends that the risk-notification condition impermissibly delegates Article III power to the probation officer. The court concluded that the district court's error, if any, was neither clear nor obvious, and thus there is no plain error here. As defendant acknowledges, the court has already held that a district court does not commit plain error when it imposes this particular condition. View "United States v. Henderson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences for multiple counts of health care fraud and conspiracy stemming from their involvement in a scheme to falsely certify that patients were eligible for home health or hospice services. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supports defendants' convictions for health care fraud and conspiracy to commit that fraud. The court rejected defendants' contention that the government offered no proof that they knew the patients were ineligible for home health and hospice, and that the government did not prove the ineligibility of the six patients whose claims were listed as the substantive fraud counts. Rather, the record shows that defendants were intimately involved with the fraud, and that the certifications for all six patients were either outright lies or based on fabricated medical records.The court also concluded that the district court properly calculated the loss amount when sentencing defendants. In this case, the district court found that defendants' fraud was pervasive and thus treated the entire amount that they billed to Medicare as the intended loss, enhancing defendants' offense levels by 24 points, resulting in an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of life in prison pursuant to USSG 2B1.1. View "United States v. Mesquias" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that defendant's prior conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm under Louisiana state law, La. R.S. 14:37.4, is not categorically a crime of violence as defined in the Sentencing Guidelines. The court examined an amendment to La. R.S. 14:37.4 and reviewed Louisiana state court's application of the amended statute, concluding that it is clear that aggravated assault with a firearm can still be committed negligently in Louisiana. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Garner" on Justia Law