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

Five individuals were charged in federal court for their roles in a large-scale drug trafficking operation. The scheme involved purchasing marijuana from states where it was legal, such as California and Oregon, and distributing it to twenty-one other states. The operation used drivers to transport marijuana and related products, with cash proceeds handled outside of financial institutions to avoid detection. Law enforcement investigations included surveillance, traffic stops, and searches of residences, warehouses, and storage units, resulting in the seizure of large quantities of marijuana, THC products, cash, and firearms. The lead investigator analyzed cell phone data to estimate the scope of the conspiracy, concluding it involved over 23,000 kilograms of marijuana.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas indicted the five appellants and ten co-defendants on multiple counts, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and other individualized charges. Eight co-defendants pleaded guilty, while the five appellants went to trial. After an eight-day trial, the jury convicted all five of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kg or more of marijuana and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Roberts was also convicted of continuing criminal enterprise and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Sentences ranged from 48 to 240 months’ imprisonment, with some counts dismissed or sentences ordered to run concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the convictions and sentences. The court affirmed the convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and promotional money laundering, but vacated the sentences for certain defendants due to errors in the admission of a summary chart used to estimate drug quantities and clerical errors in the judgments and presentence reports. The court remanded for resentencing under the default penalty provision and correction of clerical errors, while affirming other aspects of the convictions and venue determinations. View "United States v. McGuire" on Justia Law

Ricky Wilson was implicated in an incident at a Waffle House, where he allegedly brandished a green pistol with a drum magazine during a dispute, causing fear in another customer. The victim identified Wilson, his vehicle, and the weapon. A detective, already investigating Wilson for another matter, learned that Wilson’s girlfriend rented an apartment at 212 Central Avenue, where Wilson’s car was later observed. Two weeks after the Waffle House incident, the detective sought and obtained both an arrest warrant for Wilson and a search warrant for the apartment, based on an affidavit that recounted the Waffle House events and stated that items related to the assault were “believed to be located” at the apartment. The search yielded ammunition, marijuana, and a firearm, leading to federal charges against Wilson.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Wilson’s motion to suppress the evidence found at the apartment. The court found that the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to establish a nexus between the Waffle House incident and the apartment, rendering the warrant unsupported by probable cause. The court also determined that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply because the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that reliance on it was unreasonable. The government appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s suppression of the evidence. The Fifth Circuit held that the affidavit was a “bare-bones” statement, offering no facts connecting the alleged crime to the apartment, and thus failed to establish probable cause. The court further held that the good-faith exception did not apply because the affidavit was so deficient that no reasonable officer could believe it established probable cause. The suppression of the evidence was therefore proper. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

A Syrian-born naturalized U.S. citizen, together with a business partner, sought to establish a halal beef slaughterhouse in Colombia and solicited investment for the venture. An FBI confidential informant, suspicious of their activities, connected them with an undercover agent posing as a representative of a wealthy investor. The supposed investor agreed to provide $9 million on the condition that at least five percent be sent to Jabhat al-Nusra, a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. The defendants agreed to this arrangement, took steps to conceal the transfers, and demonstrated knowledge that the funds would support violent acts by the group. The FBI terminated the operation, and the defendant was arrested and charged with conspiracy to murder and maim persons in a foreign country, and conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and to a designated foreign terrorist organization.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas presided over the trial, where a jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. The court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 160 months’ imprisonment. The defendant appealed, raising several issues, including the exclusion of his son’s testimony, limitations on cross-examination, sufficiency of the evidence, denial of a combatant-immunity instruction, the jury instruction regarding the terrorist organization’s designation, and the denial of sanctions for an alleged violation of a preservation order by a government witness.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the convictions. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the son’s testimony or in its evidentiary rulings, found no reversible error in the jury instructions, and determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The appellate court also concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in denying sanctions related to the preservation order. View "United States v. Wadi" on Justia Law

After being released from a psychiatric hold, Reginald Humbles traveled from Lafayette to New Orleans, Louisiana, with little money and a firearm. When he ran out of gas, he encountered a waste removal truck and, after allegedly receiving a message from God, took the truck at gunpoint from its driver. Humbles then led police on a lengthy chase, which ended after officers deployed spike strips. Upon arrest, a loaded revolver was found in his possession. Humbles, a U.S. Army veteran with a history of mental illness, was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana accepted Humbles’s guilty plea. During sentencing, the court adopted a presentence report that cross-referenced the robbery Sentencing Guideline, applied an enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight, and included a criminal history point for an uncounseled misdemeanor DUI conviction. The court denied Humbles’s motions for a downward variance and departure based on mental health and military service, and sentenced him to 92 months’ imprisonment. Humbles appealed, challenging the application of the robbery Guideline, the enhancements, the inclusion of his DUI conviction, and the denial of his motions for a lower sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found no reversible error. The court held that the district court did not err in cross-referencing the robbery Guideline, as Humbles failed to meet his burden to prove legal insanity at the time of the offense. The court also upheld the enhancements for reckless endangerment and the inclusion of the uncounseled DUI conviction, finding that Humbles knowingly waived his right to counsel. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied the request to reassign the case to a different judge. View "United States v. Humbles" on Justia Law

Ernest Clark, while on probation for a Louisiana felony conviction of aggravated assault with a firearm, was found in possession of a firearm. He was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing firearms. Clark moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him under the Second Amendment, violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee, and exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. The district court denied his motion. Clark then pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, which included a waiver of most appellate rights except for a direct appeal of the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss under the Second Amendment, as interpreted in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi sentenced Clark to 64 months in prison and three years of supervised release. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Clark raised several claims, but acknowledged that most were foreclosed or waived by his plea agreement, except for his as-applied Second Amendment challenge and his Fifth Amendment equal protection claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that disarming individuals convicted of violent felonies, such as aggravated assault with a firearm, and those found in possession of a firearm while on probation, is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court relied on its own recent precedents to conclude that Clark’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge failed. The court also found that Clark’s equal protection claim was waived by his plea agreement. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "USA v. Clark" on Justia Law

The defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a machinegun, both federal offenses. His sentence was calculated using a higher base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines because of a prior Louisiana armed robbery conviction, which the district court classified as a “crime of violence.” The defendant did not object to this classification at sentencing but later argued on appeal that Louisiana armed robbery, as a general intent crime, should not qualify as a crime of violence under the Guidelines. He also contended that the district court’s written judgment conflicted with its oral pronouncement regarding special conditions of supervised release and the crediting of presentence detention time.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana accepted the presentence investigation report’s calculation, which set the base offense level at 22, resulting in a sentencing range of 57 to 71 months. The court sentenced the defendant to 71 months. The defendant did not object to the Guidelines calculation or the written judgment at the time of sentencing. On appeal, he raised these issues for the first time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the sentencing calculation for plain error and found no clear or obvious error in classifying Louisiana armed robbery as a crime of violence under the Guidelines, given the current state of the law. The court affirmed the district court’s base offense level determination. However, the appellate court found that the written judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement regarding special conditions of supervised release and the treatment of presentence detention credit. The court remanded the case to the district court to modify the written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement and to clarify its intent regarding credit for time served before sentencing. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

A sheriff’s deputy in Brewster County, Texas, observed a pickup truck towing a horse trailer near a border patrol checkpoint during a shift change—a time and place known for smuggling activity. The deputy recognized the driver, who had previously been identified as a possible smuggler. Without being signaled or ordered, the driver pulled over to the shoulder, and the deputy parked behind him. During a casual conversation, the deputy noticed an open alcohol container in the truck. The driver gave inconsistent and suspicious answers about the trailer’s contents and ownership, and after further questioning, eventually admitted that there were people hidden in the locked compartment of the trailer. The deputy then discovered three undocumented immigrants inside.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the defendant had been seized with reasonable suspicion and that his consent to search the trailer attenuated any taint from the deputy’s actions. The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of transporting illegal aliens but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court held that there was no Fourth Amendment violation. It found that the initial encounter was consensual, that the deputy’s actions did not constitute a seizure until reasonable suspicion had developed, and that the deputy’s incidental contact with the truck did not amount to a trespassory search. The court also determined that the discovery of the open alcohol container was lawful and that the subsequent evidence was not subject to suppression. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Larremore" on Justia Law

Ronald Donell Brown led a drug trafficking organization that transported large quantities of cocaine and marijuana from Houston, Texas, to Atlanta, Georgia. In 2014, after a shipment of cocaine was stolen, Brown believed two associates were responsible and sought to retaliate. He and others kidnapped one associate, Eric Williams, who escaped, but was later shot and wounded by Brown. Brown then orchestrated the murder of the second associate, Marcus Celestine, by providing information and a weapon to intermediaries, resulting in Celestine’s death outside a parole office. Brown was arrested in 2017 on unrelated charges and later indicted federally on multiple counts, including conspiracy to commit murder for hire, intentional killing during drug trafficking, and firearm offenses related to crimes of violence.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Brown’s motion to suppress evidence, finding that communications involving a confidential informant and Brown’s attorneys were not protected by attorney-client privilege, and that Brown’s Sixth Amendment rights had not been violated because the government’s alleged intrusion occurred before adversarial proceedings began. At trial, Brown was convicted on several counts. The government later moved to dismiss two firearm-related counts (Counts Three and Four) after trial, citing double jeopardy concerns. The district court granted this motion, denied Brown’s request for a continuance to respond, and sentenced him to life imprisonment on the remaining counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Brown’s motion to suppress, holding that the attorney-client privilege did not apply and that no Sixth Amendment violation occurred. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal of Counts Three and Four and the sentences for Counts One and Two, holding that the district court, not the government, must exercise its discretion to determine which multiplicitous convictions to dismiss and then resentence accordingly. The case was remanded for that purpose. View "USA v. Brown" on Justia Law

A woman was stopped by a county deputy in Texas around 2:00 AM after the officer claimed to observe multiple traffic violations, including speeding and failing to maintain a single lane. The woman, who had just left a family event with her husband, denied any wrongdoing and began recording the encounter on her phone. The officer reported smelling alcohol and observing signs of intoxication, such as slurred speech and glossy eyes. The woman refused to answer certain questions or perform field sobriety tests, leading to her arrest. Body camera footage later showed her being uncooperative and verbally abusive during the arrest and subsequent blood draw at the jail. A blood test revealed a low blood alcohol content, and the criminal charge was later dismissed for insufficient evidence.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the county and the arresting officer on all claims. The court found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity and that there was probable cause for the arrest based on the totality of the circumstances, including the officer’s observations and the woman’s refusal to cooperate. The court also rejected claims of First Amendment retaliation, malicious prosecution, and excessive force, as well as Monell claims against the county for alleged unconstitutional policies.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary rulings and summary judgment de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest for driving while intoxicated, that the woman failed to show a constitutional violation necessary for her claims, and that the county could not be held liable under Monell without an underlying constitutional violation. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s evidentiary decisions. View "Wood v. Bexar County" on Justia Law

The defendant, a Mexican citizen, was first brought to the United States as a child. He was discovered by federal officials in Texas in 2015 and deported later that year. In 2020, he was again found in the United States and arrested on outstanding warrants. He was convicted in state court for drug-related offenses and sentenced to five years in prison. While serving this sentence, he was screened by immigration authorities and subsequently indicted for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). In 2024, he pleaded guilty to the federal charge without a plea agreement. The district court sentenced him to 24 months in prison and one year of supervised release, adopting special conditions recommended in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), including requirements to report to immigration authorities and seek work authorization.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed at sentencing that the defendant and his counsel had reviewed the PSR, which contained the special conditions. The court orally adopted the PSR and its appendix, imposed the recommended conditions, and provided the defendant an opportunity to object. The defendant’s counsel objected only to the relationship between the federal and state offenses, not to the special conditions. The written judgment included all the conditions from the PSR. The defendant appealed, arguing that the written judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement regarding the special conditions of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case for plain error, as the defendant had notice and an opportunity to object at sentencing but did not do so. The court held that the district court satisfied the oral-pronouncement requirement by adopting the PSR and providing notice and opportunity to object. Therefore, there was no conflict between the written judgment and the oral pronouncement, and the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA v. Quezada-Atayde" on Justia Law