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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner because he failed to show any evidence demonstrating that the State controlled, or even consented to, a government informant's activity. Therefore, there was no valid Massiah claim that could have affected the outcome of the punishment at retrial. View "Thompson v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and restitution orders for various counts of healthcare fraud, distribution of controlled substances, and obstruction of justice. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's multiple convictions; the government did not constructively amend the indictment; in light of Rothgery v. Gillespie Cty., Tex., 554 U.S. 191, 198 (2008), the government did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by directing a coconspirator to record conversations with defendant; there was no Fifth Circuit precedent holding that a government's use of a coconspirator to record conversations with a subject of investigation in a non-custodial, pre-indictment setting constitutes a violation of a state bar's no-contact rule; the district court correctly determined that there was no need for an evidentiary hearing prior to trial because the issue of the recordings presented legal questions, and defendant had not articulated any factual disputes; the district court instructed the jury consistently with the indictment, which charged the specific offenses and aiding and abetting in the alternative under 18 U.S.C. 2; and the record provided an adequate basis to support the restitution order. View "United States v. Diaz" on Justia Law

Seven defendants appealed their conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Although defendants were not all members of the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, the conspiracy was connected to this group.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity of drugs attributable to Defendant Killough at sentencing. In this case, there was no information containing sufficient indicia of reliability to support the district court's calculation. Therefore, the court vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court affirmed on the remaining issues raised by defendants, including claims challenging the denial of requests for substitute counsel; the application of an obstruction of justice sentencing enhancement; denial of a motion to suppress evidence; the district court's decision allowing a witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; denial of requests for funds under the Criminal Justice Act; denial of motions for acquittal; limitations of cross-examination; and denial of cumulative error. View "United States v. Gentry" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 360 month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court rejected defendant's contention that the weekly meth transactions to which he confessed should not have been considered relevant conduct, and held that they were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan under Fifth Circuit precedent.The court held that, where a defendant does not introduce evidence to rebut his post-arrest admission of relevant conduct, the district court may consider it at sentencing. In this case, the district court did not clearly err by relying on the presentence report's account of a defendant's post-arrest, Mirandized admission of relevant conduct where defendant had objected to the reliability of his own statement but failed to introduce evidence to rebut it. View "United States v. Barfield" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his below-Guidelines 35 year sentence for his role in a carjacking with fellow gang members when he was 16 years old. The carjacking resulted in two murders.The Fifth Circuit held that defendant's sentence did not violate Miller v. Alabama, which prohibits sentencing a juvenile to mandatory life without parole, because defendant received a discretionary sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) rather than a mandatory sentence; he was sentenced to 35 years in prison rather than life without parole; and he failed to demonstrate a violation of Miller's substantive requirements. Furthermore, defendant was afforded far more than the minimum procedure necessary to conduct a proper section 3553(a) analysis, and Miller did not add procedural requirements over and above section 3553(a). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying two points to defendant's offense level for obstructing justice under USSG 3C1.1, and denying him a two point reduction for accepting responsibility under USSG 3E1.1. View "United States v. Sparks" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit held that the Texas burglary statute, Penal Code 30.02(a)(3), is generic. Therefore, defendant's three prior felonies were qualifying predicates for a sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act.The court held that the Supreme Court's intervening decisions in Quarles v. United States and United States v. Stitt foreclosed defendant's principal grounds for contesting his sentence. The court rejected defendant's claim that section 30.02(a)(3) lacks a requirement that an offender form a specific intent to commit another crime; that generic burglary requires a plan to commit another crime, while section 30.02(a)(3) requires only that one commit or attempt to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; that generic burglary requires breaking and entering or similar unlawful activity, while section 30.02(a)(3) requires none; and that "burglary," as used in the ACCA, is unconstitutionally vague. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Herrold" on Justia Law

Petitioner was granted a certificate of appealability (COA) to address whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant relief to petitioner on his claims for denial of the right to a speedy trial, on claims of violation of due process based on the suppression of evidence, and on the claim that he was entitled to substitute counsel. Petitioner had pleaded guilty to the offense of injury to a child and received a twenty-year sentence. The Fifth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over the appeal but did not reach the merits on the grounds that petitioner, on appeal, has waived any argument related to the issue upon which he was granted appellate review. View "Webb v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a special search condition of supervised release, holding that the record supported the condition and there was no clear error adversely impacting defendant's substantial rights. In this case, not only did the district court expressly adopt the findings of the presentence report (PSR), which included defendant's extensive criminal history, but the condition was a mechanism for enforcing other conditions prohibiting defendant's possession of drugs or firearms by facilitating the detection of evidence of other supervised release violations. Furthermore, the reasonableness of the conditions was evident from the very background of defendant's appeal, which stemmed from a crime he committed while on parole. View "United States v. Dean" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal of the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. In this case, defendant cited the illegality of Mathew Whitaker's designation as Acting Attorney General as the basis for his motion to dismiss. The court held that the denial of defendant's motion was not an appealable collateral order and thus the court did not have jurisdiction over his appeal. View "United States v. Valencia" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err by increasing defendant's criminal history level based on his prior state court conviction for use of methamphetamine in violation of California Health and Safety Code 11550(a). The court rejected defendant's contention that his conviction was similar to a conviction for "public intoxication" and should have been exempt under USSG 4A1.2(c)(2). The court held that all of the common-sense factors show differences between (a) Use/Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance and (b) "public intoxication" laws; other circuits have rejected defendant's arguments regarding the instant statute; and California has an offense that is more similar to "public intoxication." View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law