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

Defendants Walter and Steven Reed appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering, as well as the substantive counts of wire fraud and money laundering. Walter was also convicted of additional counts. The charges stemmed from defendants' use of Walter's District Attorney campaign funds.The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's imposition of joint and several liability for money forfeiture in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Honeycutt v. United States, which held that joint and several forfeiture liability was not permitted for forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. 853(a)(1), which mandates forfeiture for certain drug crimes. In this case, the government conceded that the imposition of joint and several forfeiture liability should be vacated and remanded in light of Honeycutt. The court otherwise affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Reed" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for count 23 -- possession, use, and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (brandishing) -- where both parties agreed that under United States v. Davis, 903 F.3d 483, 484–86 (5th Cir. 2018), defendant's conviction of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (count 1) could not serve as the underlying crime of violence predicate for his initial count 23 conviction. The court also held that, because the conviction affected his sentence, the sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion. The court held that there were no extraordinary circumstances meriting Rule 60(b)(6) relief. The court held that, even if petitioner's claims were not procedurally defaulted under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 14 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413, 428 (2013), he was ineligible for Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Furthermore, petitioner neither alleged racial discrimination nor demonstrated how his claims gave rise to the sort of pernicious injury that affects communities at large. View "Raby v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. The court held that there was ample evidence introduced at trial by which a jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was involved in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine; the evidence was sufficient to find that he was involved with, or should have reasonably foreseen that he was involved with, a conspiracy to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine; and the district court did not err in relying on the jury's finding of drug quantity when imposing the sentence. View "United States v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for bank fraud perpetrated upon a branch of J.P. Morgan Chase Bank under 18 U.S.C. 1344(1). The court held that there was insufficient evidence to show that defendant made false statements to Chase Bank or that she made false statements to another party while intending to obtain money from Chase Bank in a way that exposed Chase Bank to a risk of loss. Therefore, the government failed to prove that defendant defrauded the bank without an FDIC-insured victim. View "United States v. Perez-Ceballos" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus based on lack of jurisdiction. At issue was whether petitioner was "in custody" under the challenged state court judgment. The court held that, because it was undisputed that petitioner will be civilly committed upon the completion of his criminal sentence, he was "in custody" under the civil commitment order when he filed his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to consider the petition in the first instance. View "Rubio v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for charges related to a murder for hire and held that defendant was competent to stand trial. The court could not say that the district court's considered decision that defendant was malingering and not presently suffering from a mental disease was "clearly arbitrary or unwarranted." Furthermore, the district court did not reversibly err in finding that defendant was competent to stand trial where he possessed both a factual and rational understanding of the proceedings. Finally, defendant's challenges to the denial of request for funding for a neuro-psychological evaluation was not properly before the court, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motions for a continuance of the joint competency hearing, and denial of the motions for funding and a continuance did not amount to a denial of defendant's right to expert assistance. View "United States v. Porter" on Justia Law

After the dismissal of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, he filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter the judgment. The district court dismissed the Rule 59(e) motion without an evidentiary hearing.The Fifth Circuit held that it did not have jurisdiction to review defendant's claims because the Rule 59(e) motion constituted a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 application under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant an evidentiary hearing because he has not provided independent indicia of the merit of his allegations. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and dismissed in part. View "United States v. McDaniels" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for various crimes committed during robberies of wireless-telecommunications stores in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of using a firearm in furtherance of Hobbs Act robbery under an aiding-and-abetting theory of liability; defendant's sentence on his subsequent 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction was properly enhanced; and Hobbs Act robbery qualifed as a crime of violence for purposes of section 924(c). View "United States v. Bowens" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus relief as untimely. The court held that petitioner failed to present new evidence of actual innocence under Moore v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2008), and thus he failed to make the showing necessary for this court to consider his claims despite the expired limitations period. In this case, petitioner failed to establish that affidavits supporting his claim of actual innocence were unavailable to counsel at the time of trial. View "Hancock v. Davis" on Justia Law