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

The Fifth Circuit denied petitioner a certificate of appealability (COA), dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and sanctioned him for appealing his collateral attack on his conviction.The court held that a denial of a motion to quash a writ of execution under 28 U.S.C. 1291 is a final decision. The court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's request to quash the government's writ of execution. The court held that the statutes governing restitution granted petitioner the right to reduce his restitution order based on subsequent civil judgments. However, the court rejected petitioner's collateral attack on the restitution order and held that he did not meet the evidentiary requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3664(j)(2). View "United States v. Parker" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit treated respondent's petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing and granted it, withdrawing the court's prior opinion and substituting the following.The court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's federal application for post-conviction relief and denial of further investigative funding. The court held that no Supreme Court precedent holds that Miranda violations are not subject to harmless-error analysis, and the Court of Criminal Appeals' (CCA) decision to apply harmless-error analysis did not conflict with clearly established federal law. Furthermore, the CCA did not unreasonably apply Chapman v. California. Finally, the district court did not improperly deny petitioner investigative funding under 18 U.S.C. 3599(f) where the district court viewed the request for additional funding as effectively seeking a full retrial of the issues already litigated in the state court. View "Jones v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and held that defendant was not in custody for purposes of Miranda. Considering all the circumstances of the interview and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the court held that defendant was not "in custody," because a reasonable inmate in defendant's position would not expect to be required to stay in the office after the termination of the interview.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on a statute of limitations defense where there was no evidence that immigration authorities had actual or constructive knowledge of defendant's presence in the United States. Finally, the court held that defendant's challenge to jury selection was unavailing and defendant failed to show a clear or obvious Confrontation Clause error. View "United States v. Arellano-Banuelos" on Justia Law

The district court held that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' application of Witherspoon v. Illinois and its progeny was unreasonable because the state trial court violated petitioner's constitutional right to an impartial jury under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when it excluded a member of the venire for having moral, conscientious, or religious objections to the death penalty. The State appealed.The Fifth Circuit held that the state court proceedings concerning the exclusion of the member as a juror did not result in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Furthermore, the state court proceedings did not result in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. However, the district court did not give appropriate deference to the TCCA's determination that the trial court did not violate the federal constitution when it removed the member for cause. The court also held that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief on this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where, even assuming counsel's performance was deficient, petitioner failed to establish prejudice. Finally, petitioner failed to cite any decision of the Supreme Court holding that the severely mentally ill are ineligible for execution. Accordingly, the court reversed in part to the extent that the district court conditionally granted habeas relief to petitioner on his first claim of relief and otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Smith v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to transport undocumented aliens within the United States and two counts of transporting undocumented aliens within the United States. The court held that the district court did not prohibit defendant from testifying at the sentencing hearing, and did not err by imposing a sentencing enhancement for reckless endangerment. In this case, the enhancement was based on the district court's finding that defendant committed various dangerous traffic infractions, including driving at speeds of up to 100 miles an hour and running a red light, while seeking to evade capture during the transporting of undocumented aliens. View "United States v. Garcia-Solis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. The pre-sentence report (PSR) assessed two points stemming from a prior February 2017 misdemeanor conviction for aiding and abetting illegal entry.The court held that, because the dates in the PSR unambiguously established March 2, 2018 as defendant's reentry date, defendant has shown plain error. Furthermore, the error affected defendant's substantial rights, because the district court referred to the Guidelines range multiple times and ultimately imposed a sentence at the top of the range. Finally, this case did not present any other identified countervailing factors justifying the denial of relief under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b). View "United States v. Perez-Mateo" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for aiding and abetting the possession of marijuana in the amount of more than 100 kilograms but less than 1,000 kilograms, with intent to distribute. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to provide a reasonable inference that defendant knew that he was carrying marijuana. The court found no reason to create a new procedural distinction which would not exclude the time spent on the motion for detention, the court held that defendant's Speedy Trial Act claim failed on the merits. View "United States v. Vinagre-Hernandez" on Justia Law

After petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder, the state court overturned the conviction on direct appeal. Then the State retried petitioner and reconvicted him.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, rejecting petitioner's contention that his prior conviction should be construed as an implicit acquittal that barred the reconviction. The court held that petitioner could not surmount the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's relitigation bar where he failed to identify any Supreme Court precedent that was opposite to or materially indistinguishable from this case. Furthermore, petitioner failed to show an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Finally, even if the court were to set aside AEDPA's relitigation bar and reviewed the claim de novo, petitioner still could not prove his second jury necessarily determined anything regarding his specific intent. View "Langley v. Prince" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a motion for an order authorizing the filing and consideration of a second-or-successive habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Assuming arguendo that movant's claim was not time-barred and he could not have previously discovered the factual predicate for the claim using due diligence, the court held that he could not establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the underlying offense. Therefore, movant failed to make a prima facie showing sufficient to warrant authorization for a second-or-successive habeas petition on the ground that the state destroyed exculpatory evidence such that it is no longer available for testing, in violation of California v. Trombetta and Arizona v. Youngblood. The court also rejected movant's claim under Giglio v. United States that the state's forensic serologist falsely referred to exculpatory serological results; claim of a Brady violation, and claim of actual innocence. View "In re: Raby" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for production of child pornography and possession of child pornography. Defendant conceded that relief on the issues he asserted was foreclosed under current precedent and raised the issues to preserve them for further review. The court dispensed with further briefing and held, and defendant conceded, that he could not show error in the district court's decision that there was a sufficient factual basis for his guilty pleas. In the alternative, the court held that it was bound by United States v. Dickson, 632 F.3d 186, 189-90, 192 (5th Cir. 2011), and United States v. Kallestad, 236 F.3d 225, 226-31 (5th Cir. 2000). Finally, defendant's knowing and voluntary appeal waiver barred his challenge to the district court's determination of his offense level. View "United States v. Bailey" on Justia Law