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

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing, withdrew its previous opinion, and substituted the following opinion.The court vacated the certificate of appealability (COA) as invalid, as the parties concede, under 28 U.S.C. U.S.C. 2253(c)(2)–(3) because it fails to specify a constitutional issue. In this case, defendant seeks a valid COA under United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). The court concluded that defendant was not sentenced under the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B). Rather, he was sentenced under the elements clause in 924(c)(3)(A). The court explained that defendant's indictment, his stipulated factual resume, and his plea agreement all confirm that he was convicted of and sentenced for putting the lives of his victims in jeopardy by using a handgun. The court concluded that this easily satisfies the elements clause and renders section 924(c)'s residual clause and Davis irrelevant. Because defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the court could not grant a COA and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Castro" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part a petition challenging petitioner's removability based on an aggravated felony conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for attempting to launder money in violation of Tennessee law. The court concluded that only two of petitioner's five claims in his petition for review have been exhausted. The court also concluded that Tennessee Code section 39- 14- 903(b)(1) was divisible by subsection in light of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2248–49 (2016). Finally, the court concluded that the BIA did not err in concluding that Subsection (b) was a categorical match with the generic crime of money laundering. View "Fakhuri v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to coercion and enticement, sexual exploitation of a child, and possession of child pornography. The court upheld the district court's application of a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G2.1(b)(4)(A) for an offense involving material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence; a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G2.1(b)(3) for distribution of child pornography; and a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) for the commission of a sexual act or sexual contact. The court also upheld the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines grouping rules. View "United States v. McGavitt" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit ordered a limited remand in this appeal challenging the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a reduced sentence under section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. In this case, the district court's order said that it had considered the applicable factors provided in section 404 and 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). However, the district court's additional statement that it considered applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission indicates that the district court may have erroneously applied the compassionate release standard that requires review of policy statements. Because such policy statements are not applicable because defendant averred that he was not seeking compassionate release, the court remanded for clarification. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying defendant's motion for compassionate release or release to home confinement under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) based on extraordinary and compelling reasons including the COVID-19 pandemic. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, factually or legally, by deciding the conditions at defendant's prison and his medical conditions were insufficiently compelling and extraordinary to entitle him to relief. In this case, defendant suffers from hypertension and obesity, and his hypertension is apparently controlled through medication. Furthermore, defendant has not experienced serious heart problems since he suffered a heart attack in 2014 and he has served less than half of his 168-month sentence. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and granted counsel's motion to withdraw. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court plainly erred when it delegated to a probation officer the determination of whether he must participate in an inpatient or outpatient substance abuse treatment program. In this case, the district court merely delegated the details of the conditions to the officer. Furthermore, it is not clear or obvious that a 45-month sentence is short enough such that the delegation of the inpatient or outpatient designation to a probation officer amounts to a restriction of defendant's liberty. Therefore, defendant failed to show plain error. View "United States v. Aguilar-Cerda" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act (FSA) and remanded in light of United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021). The district court did not have the benefit of Shkambi, where the court clarified that Section 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines does not bind district courts when they resolve prisoners’ compassionate-release motions, when it denied defendant's motion and it appears to have mistakenly concluded that Section 1B1.13 governed its analysis of defendant's prisoner-filed motion. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' action against the TDCJ and several of its officials over prison conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs allege that TDCJ failed to provide reasonable accommodations for their co-morbidities and take other precautions against the COVID-19 pandemic and, in so doing, violated their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.The court concluded that plaintiffs' undisputed failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) resolves this case. Considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, TDCJ's written response to the Step 1 grievance shows that TDCJ's grievance process could provide at least some relief to plaintiffs. The court explained that the process may have been suboptimal, but it was available as a matter of law and thus, plaintiffs were required to exhaust it before bringing this suit. View "Thoele v. Collier" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 120 month sentence for attempting to obtain or possess methamphetamine in prison. The court concluded that the district court did not err by applying the USSG 2P1.2 cross-reference to USSG 2D1.1 and the subsequent two-level enhancement of USSG 2D1.1(b)(4) based on defendant's intention to distribute the methamphetamine. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying the two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(c) based on defendant's role as a leader in the scheme. View "United States v. Anguiano" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether defendant's lawyer's conflict of interest adversely affected his representation. In this case, unbeknownst to defendant, her pretrial attorney—who represented her until days before trial—also represented one of the Government's star witnesses. Defendant retained new counsel and was convicted.The court agreed with defendant that "Assistance of Counsel" necessarily means effective assistance, and effective assistance demands conflict-free representation. The court stated that this is certainly no less true during the pretrial phase, particularly today, when roughly 97.8 percent of federal criminal convictions are obtained not through a constitutionally prescribed jury trial but through plea bargaining. The court otherwise affirmed the district court's denial of a continuance and rejected defendant's additional grounds for reversal. View "United States v. Sheperd" on Justia Law