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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possessing child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence of his statements to HSI agents and the evidence from his laptop. The court weighed the totality of the circumstances and concluded that defendant was not in custody at the time he made the statements and thus Miranda warnings were not necessary. The court also weighed the factors for determining whether a consent to a search was voluntary and concluded that the district court did not err in determining that defendant's consent to the search of his laptop was voluntary.The court further concluded that there was no error in the admission of several pieces of evidence and witness testimony. Even if the district court did err, the error was harmless. Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of knowing possession of child pornography. View "United States v. Michalik" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 2114(a) by assaulting mail carriers and putting their lives in danger, and violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A) and (c)(3)(B) by using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. Defendant was sentenced to 552 months in prison, including four concurrent sentences for 168 months based on the fact that defendant put his victims' lives in jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon. Defendant was subsequently granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on whether the district court erred by denying defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion as untimely. In this case both sides agree that defendant's COA is invalid because it fails to specify a constitutional issue.Given the plain text of 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2), Supreme Court precedent, and the similarities between the COA requirement and other habeas doctrines, the Fifth Circuit held that an invalid COA can and should be vacated. In so holding, the court aligned its circuit with the strong majority of circuits that have confronted this issue. View "United States v. Castro" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence for his role in an alien smuggling operation during which an alien died. The court concluded that there was no Confrontation Clause violation where the government undertook reasonable efforts to secure the attendance of deported witnesses at trial. The court also concluded that the government was not required to prove that defendant directly received payments for transporting the illegal aliens, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by including a statement saying such in the jury instructions. The court further concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions.In regard to defendant's sentence, the court concluded that there was no error in the district court's denial of a downward departure for defendant's acceptance of responsibility where he put the government to its burden of proof at trial. Furthermore, there was no error in the application of a ten-level enhancement for the death of one of the aliens. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence of 78 months was procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Gaspar-Felipe" on Justia Law

Defendants Judith and Dick Brocato were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit tax fraud, and filing false returns. Defendants were sentenced to 33 months imprisonment on all counts, to run concurrently. On appeal, defendants seek recusal of the district judge, vacatur of their sentences, and resentencing by a different judge. In this case, defendants argued that the district court's "sua sponte, ex parte investigation into Judith's credibility," its accusation of perjury, and its decision to increase both defendants' bond obligations evinced actual or apparent bias warranting recusal.The Fifth Circuit concluded that certain statements of the district court judge were ill-advised and certain actions of her staff were improper, but nonetheless affirmed because, after a thorough review of the record, the court concluded that there was no actual bias or reasonable question as to the judge's impartiality in this case that would require recusal. The court explained that a reasonable and objective observer, aware of all of the facts and circumstances, would not harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality. View "United States v. Brocato" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit held that Texas's intoxication manslaughter statute, Tex. Penal Code 49.08(a), does not constitute a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 16. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred when it convicted and sentenced defendant under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) based on his prior conviction under Texas Penal Code 49.08(a). Nonetheless, the court concluded that the error did not ultimately affect defendant's sentence because there is no indication anywhere in the record that the sentence imposed here was influenced in any way by an incorrect understanding of the statutory maximum sentence. Rather, defendant concedes that the district court entered a sentence within the Guidelines range, and below the statutory maximum of section 1326(b)(1). Moreover, the district court did not even cite section 1326(b)(2) in its sentencing decision. Accordingly, the court reformed the judgment to correct the error under section 1326(b)(2) and affirmed the sentence as reformed. View "United States v. Trujillo" on Justia Law

Samuel Abram was convicted by jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), the United States Supreme Court decided that that crime required the government to prove the defendant's knowledge of his felony status. Because his indictment didn’t allege such knowledge, Abram petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241, which the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Abram provided only a conclusory assertion he was "actually innocent" of his firearm conviction. He did not contend he was unaware of his felony status. "And that’s fatal: Where a prisoner seeks relief under Rehaif but fails to 'argue that he was unaware of his [relevant] status, he has failed to demonstrate that he [is] entitled to proceed under § 2255(e)’s savings clause.'” Accordingly, the district court's dismissal was affirmed. View "Abram v. McConnell" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion seeking to vacate his sentence based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that counsel's decision to forego a suppression motion was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that her decision was not sound strategy. Therefore, defendant failed the first prong of the Strickland v. Washington analysis. In this case, counsel provided constitutionally adequate representation when she decided to forego a suppression motion to follow her strategy of preventing additional charges from being brought against defendant. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review an order of removal based on defendant's conviction of online solicitation of a minor. In this case, an IJ terminated petitioner's removal proceedings, but the BIA partially vacated the IJ's decision and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the IJ ordered petitioner removed.After determining that the court has jurisdiction to consider the petition for review, the court concluded that the BIA did not err in finding petitioner removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) for a crime of child abuse. The court explained that Garcia v. Barr, 969 F.3d 129, 132 (5th Cir. 2020), foreclosed petitioner's argument that the court should not give deference to the BIA's broad interpretation of a "crime of child abuse" under section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). The court agreed with the BIA that petitioner's conviction for online solicitation of a minor in violation of section 33.021(c) of the Texas Penal Code falls within the BIA's definition of a crime of child abuse. View "Adeeko v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. In 2003, plaintiff pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) and (d) and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). Defendant received a mandatory life sentence for the armed bank robbery, as required by the federal three-strikes law, 18 U.S.C. 3559(c)(1), because the offense was a serious violent felony and defendant had two prior convictions for serious violent felonies. Defendant argues that his life sentence should be vacated in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 597 (2015).The court concluded that, because plaintiff's prior convictions qualify as serious violent felonies without relying on the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. 3559(c)(2)(F)(ii), the district court did not err in denying defendant's 2255 motion. In this case, defendant's prior conviction for bank robbery under section 2113(a), is an enumerated offense that falls within the statute's definition of serious violent felony. Furthermore, defendant's prior conviction for Louisiana armed robbery meets the definition of robbery as described in section 2111 and thus it qualifies as a serious violent felony under section 3559(c)(2)(F)(i). The court additionally determined that Louisiana armed robbery is a serious violent felony under the force clause of section 3559(c)(2)(F)(ii). View "United States v. Parker" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's revocation sentence and supervised-release conditions in a case where defendant, a serial sexual predator of children and people with disabilities, violated the conditions of his supervised release. The court concluded that, although the district court may have made a one-word misstatement regarding defendant's criminal history, any error did not prejudice defendant. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court unlawfully delegated judicial authority in directing him to "follow the instructions of the U.S. Probation Officer." In this case, the court found no plain error. View "United States v. Tinney" on Justia Law