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

Defendant appealed his 652 month sentence for drug trafficking and firearms offenses, arguing that the district court improperly enhanced his sentence by applying a two level adjustment pursuant to USSG 3B1.1(c) for being an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor in the underlying criminal activities.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err in applying the section 3B1.1(c) role enhancement. Nonetheless, the court remanded the case for the limited purpose of determining whether the district court wished to resentence defendant in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Dean v. United States. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit considered this case in light of the Court's decision in Mullenix v. Luna. Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that officers used excessive force when they shot and killed their son.The court affirmed the district court's denial of Officer Cassidy and Hunter's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, otherwise reinstated the court's previous opinion in this case, and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the district court did not weigh the evidence and resolve the factual dispute over the shooting and that a jury should resolve what happened on that night. View "Cole v. Hunter" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied movant's request for authorization to consider a successive motion to vacate his death sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h). The court held that movant's successive section 2255 motion presented only a single claim that was already presented in his original motion. In this case, movant was barred from relitigating his Atkins claim under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1)'s strict relitigation bar, which the court incorporated into section 2255(h)'s scheme. View "In Re: Alfred Bourgeois" on Justia Law

Defendants Bernard and Vialva were convicted of capital murder under federal law and sentenced to death. The Fifth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability (COA) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). The court held that defendants cited unrelated misconduct by the judge and then sought to link this to their substantive attacks on the federal court's previous resolution of a claim on the merits. Therefore, jurists of reason could not debate that the district court was correct to construe petitioners' filings as successive motions under section 2255. View "United States v. Vialva" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion seeking relief from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that the district court did not err in determining that the Rule 60(b) motion should be construed as a successive section 2254 petition, requiring authorization from this court prior to filing as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3). View "Gilkers v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry after having been deported. While his appeal was pending, the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. Herrold, 883 F.3d 517, 517 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc), that a conviction under the same Texas burglary statute was not a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. In light of Herrold, the government conceded that plaintiff was entitled to a vacated sentence. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Islas-Saucedo" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit held that Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), did not affect defendants' convictions for Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. 924(c). Therefore, the court affirmed its prior judgment regarding defendants' violations of section 924(c) as predicated on Hobbs Act robbery.The court held that section 924(c)'s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague and thus defendants' convictions and sentences for knowingly using, carrying, or brandishing a firearm to aid and abet conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery must be vacated. The court noted that its decision did not implicate the sentences on the other counts. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for entry of a revised judgment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated a certificate of appealability (COA) on two issues and dismissed the appeal. The court held that it had no jurisdiction to issue a COA on an issue in which the district court did not deny a COA. In this case, petitioner did not present to the district court, in any manner identifiable by that court, a claim that he was constructively denied counsel. Therefore, the district court did not consider the Cronic issues and thus the COA was granted without jurisdiction. View "Black v. Davis" on Justia Law

Movant, a federal death row inmate, sought authorization for a successive motion to vacate his death sentence, claiming that he is intellectually disabled. The Fifth Circuit held that the larger statutory context favors applying 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1)'s strict relitigation bar to federal prisoners. In this case, movant was barred from relitigating his Atkins claim and his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion presented only a single claim that was already presented in his original motion. Therefore, the court denied his request for authorization. View "In Re: Alfred Bourgeois" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and withdrew the previous opinions, substituting the following opinion.The court held that, in light of United States v. Herrold, defendant's conviction for burglary did not qualify as a predicate for the district court's application of a 16 level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Herrold abrogated prior decisions of this court that held that a conviction under Texas Penal Code 30.03(a)(1) was generic burglary. The court held, however, that defendant failed to satisfy the fourth prong of plain error review, because the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. View "United States v. Fuentes-Canales" on Justia Law