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

After defendant signed a plea agreement pleading guilty of receipt of child pornography, he claimed that he lacked the requisite mens rea, the government entrapped him, and the factual basis of the plea was inaccurate. However, at the pretrial conference, defendant again pleaded guilty under the original plea agreement. In this appeal, defendant argued that the district court committed plain error by restricting his right to withdraw the guilty plea and by involving itself in plea negotiations.The court held that the district court did not err, plain or otherwise, where defendant never formally requested to withdraw his plea but, instead, continued to waver before ultimately deciding to persist in his original guilty plea. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court improperly conditioned the withdrawal of the plea on his decision to pursue an affirmative defense. The court also held that the judge's stray comments did not amount to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(1) violation, and the district court did not improperly participate in plea discussions in violation of Rule 11(c)(1). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. De Leon" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's determination that petitioner was removable because she was convicted of a drug offense. Petitioner argued that she was not removable because she was convicted for possessing a small amount of marijuana for personal use. The court held that the BIA's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)'s personal-use exception was reasonable. Applying the BIA's circumstances-specific approach, the court held that petitioner's conviction did not fall within the personal-use exception. In this case, substantial evidence supported the BIA's findings that petitioner possessed 54.6 pounds of marijuana—substantially more than the personal-use exception’s 30-gram threshold. View "Cardoso de Flores v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), and enhanced per the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Defendant alleged that the district court plainly erred in applying the ACCA enhancement and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as to both claims, holding that defendant's ACCA enhancement claim was barred by his appeal waiver and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not ripe for review on direct appeal. View "United States v. Kelly" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in meth, she moved to suppress evidence, arguing that an officer's tap of her tire was a search not supported by probable cause. The district court denied the motion.The Fifth Circuit held that the brief physical examination of the tire was subject to the Fourth Amendment under the recently revived trespass test for deciding what is a search. However, the officer had probable cause to tap the tire. In this case, the tires were wobbly, the truck was veering outside of its lane, and the stripped bolts gave a reasonable officer probable cause to believe that the tire posed a safety risk. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Richmond" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. The court held that the district court clearly erred by imposing a four-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to USSG 2k2.1(b)(6)(B) for using or possessing ammunition in connection with another felony offense.The court held that possession of ammunition alone, under appropriate circumstances not present here, certainly may be sufficient for the four-level enhancement. The court also held that there is no presumption of facilitation regarding the possession of only ammunition. In this case, the court held that the government produced no facts tending to show that defendant's mere possession of ammunition alone was connected with his drug trafficking activities, and thus the application of section 2k2.1(b)(6)(B)'s four-level enhancement was clear error. The court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Eaden" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a petition for habeas relief as successive. The court found that petitioner's previous habeas petition challenged a judgment distinct from the one he challenged in the present habeas petition. In this case, petitioner's 2013 petition challenged only his 20 year sentence and his current petition challenging his seven year sentences concerned a new judgment. View "Parker v. Davis" on Justia Law

The phrase "officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice," as it is used in 34 U.S.C. 12601(a), does not include the judges of a county youth court. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in an action under section 12601, alleging that Lauderdale County and its two Youth Court judges operated a "school-to-prison pipeline" and, through their administration of the juvenile justice process, were engaged in patterns or practices that denied juveniles their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the lawsuit against the judges on the basis that they are outside the scope of Section 12601, and because the government has affirmatively waived any other argument for continuing the lawsuit against the County. View "United States v. Lauderdale County" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for four counts of sex trafficking and one count of conspiracy. The court held that a narcotics warrant authorized the seizure of defendant's phone and the warrant to search the phone that was obtained nine days after the seizure was reasonable. The court also held that the district court did not err in not allowing defendant to probe his witness about any state charge; the evidence was sufficient on the special findings; and because the evidence against defendant was substantial, the court refused to vacated his convictions based on a claim of error to the jury instructions. View "United States v. Fulton" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment reflecting that defendant was convicted under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) rather than section 1326(b)(1). The court held that, in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. Stitt, 139 S.Ct. 399 (2018), holding that Arkansas residential burglary "falls within the scope of generic burglary's definition," defendant's conviction was an aggravated felony. View "United States v. Perdomo" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for federal habeas relief for petitioner, who was convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to death. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding photographs from petitioner's childhood that were offered as mitigation evidence during the sentencing phase where the exclusion of the photographs did not have a substantial or injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict; while the furlough testimony would not have been accurate if given after the legislative amendment, it was valid at the time it was given and a subsequent change to the statute did not make the earlier testimony—based on an earlier version of the law—invalid; and the state court was not unreasonable in rejecting petitioner's Batson challenges. View "Rhoades v. Davis" on Justia Law