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

Cedric Allen Ricks was convicted of capital murder in Texas state court for killing his girlfriend and her eight-year-old son and was sentenced to death. After his direct appeal and state habeas petition were denied, Ricks filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court also denied, including a certificate of appealability (COA).Ricks sought a COA from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on several claims. The district court had denied his Batson claim, which alleged racial discrimination in jury selection, finding no prima facie case of discrimination and accepting the prosecution's race-neutral justifications. The district court also found no pattern of racially disparate questioning. The Fifth Circuit agreed, noting that reasonable jurists would not find the district court's assessment debatable or wrong, and thus denied the COA on this claim.Ricks also claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising the Batson claim on appeal. The state court had denied this claim on the merits. The Fifth Circuit found that since the Batson claim was meritless, the appellate counsel's failure to raise it was neither unreasonable nor prejudicial, and denied the COA on this claim as well.Ricks argued that his due process rights were violated when the jury saw him in shackles. The district court rejected this claim, noting that Ricks exposed his shackles himself and failed to show any substantial influence on the jury's verdict. The Fifth Circuit found this claim procedurally defaulted because it was not raised on direct appeal and was barred by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Consequently, no COA was issued for this claim.Lastly, Ricks claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not objecting to the shackling and for not challenging the State's peremptory strikes against female venire members. The Fifth Circuit found the trial counsel's decisions reasonable and strategic, and thus denied the COA on these claims.The Fifth Circuit denied the motion for a COA on all claims. View "Ricks v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Justin Henry was observed by New Orleans Police Department officers entering a stolen vehicle in a shopping center parking lot. When approached by police, Henry fled on foot, discarding a firearm in the process. Henry, a convicted felon, was subsequently charged with possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He pleaded guilty to the charge.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana sentenced Henry, applying a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, specifically the possession of a stolen vehicle. The court determined that the firearm facilitated or had the potential to facilitate the possession of the stolen vehicle. This enhancement increased Henry’s sentencing range, resulting in a 100-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Henry argued that the district court erred in applying the sentencing enhancement, contending that the government failed to prove he knew the vehicle was stolen and that the firearm facilitated the possession of the stolen vehicle. The Fifth Circuit found that while the district court could reasonably infer Henry knew the vehicle was stolen, there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that the firearm facilitated the possession of the stolen vehicle. The court noted that mere proximity of the firearm to the stolen vehicle was not enough to apply the enhancement.The Fifth Circuit affirmed Henry’s conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that the district court erred in applying the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement without sufficient evidence of facilitation. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

Dajuan Martin was arrested after being seen riding a stolen scooter in New Orleans. During the police pursuit, he discarded a Glock 26, 9mm semi-automatic handgun, which was later recovered with a magazine containing 16 rounds of ammunition. Martin pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated his offense level at 12, with a criminal history category of III, suggesting a sentencing range of 15 to 21 months. However, the government objected, arguing for a higher base offense level due to the firearm's large capacity magazine.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana accepted the government's argument, raising Martin's base offense level to 20, resulting in a new sentencing range of 30 to 37 months. Martin was sentenced to 33 months of imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. The court also imposed conditions for supervised release, including participation in a drug and alcohol treatment program and submission to searches under certain conditions. However, the written judgment included additional requirements not stated during the oral pronouncement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Martin challenged the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines' commentary defining "large capacity magazine" and the discrepancies between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment regarding supervised release conditions. The Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's use of the commentary, finding it consistent with the Guidelines. However, it agreed with Martin that the written judgment improperly broadened the conditions of supervised release.The Fifth Circuit affirmed Martin's sentence in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the case for the district court to amend the written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement. The court also rejected Martin's constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), citing consistent precedent upholding the statute's constitutionality. View "USA v. Martin" on Justia Law

A federal agent stationed in Dubai, Leatrice De Bruhl-Daniels, developed a romantic relationship with a Syrian national, Nadal Diya, who was under investigation for suspected ties to terrorism. Despite warnings from her colleagues, De Bruhl-Daniels disclosed confidential information to Diya, including details about an ongoing counterterrorism investigation. She later lied to federal investigators about these disclosures.Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, De Bruhl-Daniels was convicted on twelve counts related to her conduct and sentenced to 108 months in prison. She appealed four of her convictions and her overall sentence, arguing that her false statements did not involve international terrorism under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), that the statute’s sentencing enhancement was unconstitutionally vague, and that her conduct did not fall under the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed De Bruhl-Daniels' conviction on Count 24, finding sufficient evidence that her false statements involved international terrorism, thus justifying the enhanced sentence under § 1001(a). The court also held that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague. However, the court vacated her convictions on Counts 15, 36, and 37, which were based on obstructing an official proceeding, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fischer v. United States. The court determined that her conduct did not fall within the scope of § 1512(c)(2) as it did not involve tampering with evidence.As a result, the Fifth Circuit vacated De Bruhl-Daniels' sentence and remanded the case for resentencing based on the remaining convictions. View "United States v. De Bruhl-Daniels" on Justia Law

Ruel M. Hamilton, a real estate developer in Dallas, Texas, was involved in efforts to place a paid sick leave ordinance on the ballot. He was asked by Councilman Philip Kingston to speak with Councilman Dwaine Caraway to persuade the Mayor to put the ordinance on the City Council’s agenda. Unbeknownst to Hamilton, Caraway was cooperating with the FBI. During a recorded meeting, Hamilton offered to help Caraway financially, and Caraway mentioned needing $6,200. Hamilton then wrote Caraway a check for $7,000.A grand jury indicted Hamilton on four counts, including bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) and a Travel Act violation under 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). The jury convicted Hamilton of the bribery charge but acquitted him of the Travel Act charge. Hamilton appealed, arguing that the jury should have been instructed that the bribery charge required proof of a quid pro quo bribe. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed, vacated the conviction, and remanded the case. The Government decided to retry the bribery charge, but Hamilton moved to dismiss, claiming double jeopardy and collateral estoppel. The district court denied his motion, stating that the two charges involved different conduct and elements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Hamilton did not meet the burden of proving that the jury in the first trial necessarily decided that the check was not a quid pro quo bribe. The court noted that the jury could have acquitted Hamilton on the Travel Act charge based on his lack of specific intent during the August 2 phone call, rather than on the nature of the check given on August 3. Therefore, the retrial of the bribery charge did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Kenneth Bryan Ritchey, the defendant, operated Gulf Coast Pharmaceuticals Plus, LLC, a wholesale distributor of pharmaceutical products. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Ritchey directed his employees to acquire large quantities of personal protective equipment (PPE) and resell them at inflated prices to various healthcare providers, including the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA was charged significantly higher prices than the market value, resulting in Ritchey and his company receiving over $2 million, including more than $270,000 from the VA.Ritchey was charged with six counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. He pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 371, and the remaining counts were dismissed. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi calculated Ritchey’s offense level based on the estimated pecuniary loss caused by his actions, which included a significant enhancement for the amount of loss. The court determined the fair market value (FMV) of the PPE based on pre-pandemic prices and 3M’s pricing, leading to a higher offense level and a 60-month prison sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in calculating the FMV by relying on pre-pandemic prices and 3M’s pricing, which did not reflect the actual market conditions during the pandemic. The appellate court held that the district court’s method of determining the FMV was not based on a realistic economic approach. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated Ritchey’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, emphasizing the need for a more accurate calculation of the FMV that reflects the market conditions at the time of the transactions. View "United States v. Ritchey" on Justia Law

Federal agents received a tip about methamphetamine being stored at a house in El Paso, Texas. An informant arranged a controlled buy with Carla Dominguez, who confirmed she had methamphetamine for sale. Dominguez and her husband, Samuel Crittenden, were observed by agents; Crittenden retrieved a bag from the house and handed it to Dominguez, who was later intercepted by police with ten pounds of methamphetamine. Crittenden admitted to storing items at the house and giving a bag to Dominguez, claiming he thought it contained marijuana. Additional drugs were found in the attic of the house.Crittenden and Dominguez were charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute methamphetamine and marijuana. The government raised a potential conflict of interest with Crittenden’s attorney, Leonard Morales, who also represented another individual involved in drug activities. The district court held a Garcia hearing, where Crittenden waived his right to conflict-free counsel. The court accepted the waiver, and the trial proceeded. Crittenden was convicted on all counts, but the district court later granted a new trial due to insufficient evidence. The Fifth Circuit reinstated the conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and remanded for sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Crittenden’s appeal, where he argued that the district court erred in accepting his waiver of conflict-free counsel and in denying a lesser-included-offense instruction for simple possession. The Fifth Circuit found that Crittenden’s waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and that the district court did not err in accepting it. The court also held that the evidence overwhelmingly indicated intent to distribute, making a lesser-included-offense instruction for simple possession inappropriate. The court affirmed the district court’s decisions and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Crittenden" on Justia Law

A senior trooper with the Louisiana State Police (LSP), August McKay, committed suicide at his home after learning he was being reassigned and that a search warrant was to be executed on his residence. His widow, Brandy McKay, sued several LSP officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Louisiana state law, alleging their actions contributed to his death. The district court denied qualified immunity to two officers, Sergeant Rohn Bordelon and Trooper David LaCroix, leading to this appeal.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana initially dismissed Brandy’s Eighth Amendment claim but allowed her to amend her complaint. She then limited her claims to the Fourteenth Amendment and state laws. The district court found that Brandy had sufficiently stated § 1983 claims against Sgt. Bordelon and Trooper LaCroix, concluding they had subjective knowledge of August’s suicide risk and responded with deliberate indifference. The court dismissed the claims against other defendants and allowed the state law claims against Sgt. Bordelon and Trooper LaCroix to proceed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no constitutional duty to protect August from self-harm, as he was not in state custody or otherwise restrained. The court emphasized that the officers did not attempt to arrest or confine August, and Brandy’s complaint focused on their failure to restrain him. Without a constitutional duty, there could be no violation, and thus, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court reversed the district court’s decision regarding qualified immunity and dismissed the appeal concerning the state law claims without prejudice, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "McKay v. LaCroix" on Justia Law

Josephine Perez-Gorda was convicted of fraud after she and her husband, Justin, misrepresented his medical condition to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Justin, who suffered a brain injury while on duty, and Perez-Gorda claimed he was unable to walk or care for himself, leading to the receipt of various government benefits, including a new home, car, and caregiver stipend. However, evidence showed Justin was more mobile and self-sufficient than they had represented. After Justin's death in 2022, Perez-Gorda was indicted on multiple counts of wire fraud, mail fraud, health care fraud, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and aiding and abetting offenses.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas convicted Perez-Gorda on all counts, and she was sentenced to forty-six months in prison. Perez-Gorda appealed, arguing that the jury instructions on wire and mail fraud were erroneous based on intervening circuit precedent. She did not object to these instructions at trial. The Fifth Circuit reviewed the instructions for plain error and found them erroneous but concluded that the error did not affect Perez-Gorda’s substantial rights, as there was no reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted her under the correct instructions.Perez-Gorda also challenged statements made during the grand jury proceedings and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury verdicts. The Fifth Circuit found that the statements did not influence the grand jury’s decision and that a rational jury could have found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, Perez-Gorda contested her sentence, specifically the two-level upward adjustment for her role as an organizer or leader. The Fifth Circuit reviewed this factual finding for clear error and upheld it, noting evidence that Perez-Gorda supervised Justin in the fraudulent activities. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Perez-Gorda" on Justia Law

On November 4, 2020, San Antonio police officers stopped a car driven by Ronnie Diaz, Jr. They detected a strong odor of marijuana and found empty baggies commonly used for narcotics. Diaz admitted to having ammunition in his pocket and being a convicted felon. A search of the vehicle revealed a .45 caliber pistol, methamphetamine, counterfeit Xanax, and heroin. Diaz had prior convictions, including theft of a vehicle and evading arrest in 2014, and possession of a firearm as a felon in 2018.Diaz was charged in the Western District of Texas with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possessing firearms during a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to dismiss the felon-in-possession charge, arguing it violated the Second Amendment. The district court denied the motion, and Diaz was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 120 months for counts one and three, to run concurrently, and 60 months for count two, to run consecutively.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Diaz raised two claims: that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied, and that the statute exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. The court dismissed the Commerce Clause argument as foreclosed by precedent. Applying the historical analysis required by New York Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the court found that the regulation of firearm possession by felons is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Diaz and facially. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed Diaz’s conviction. View "United States v. Diaz" on Justia Law