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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography. The court held that the district court erred by adding a five-level enhancement under USSG 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) for distributing in exchange for any valuable consideration, but not for pecuniary gain. In this case, the district court erred by applying the court's holding in United States v. Groce, 784 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 2015), instead of an intervening amendment of the Guidelines. However, the procedural error was harmless because the record reflected that the district court would have imposed the same sentence with a significant downward variance in light of his age and his lack of criminal history. The court also held that the district court did not err by awarding $50,317.00 of restitution to six known victims; the district court did not err by denying an additional one-level reduction to defendant's base offense level for acceptance of responsibility; and defendant's special condition of supervised release, preventing access to the internet, survived plain-error review. View "United States v. Halverson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted defendant's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his application for a certificate of appealability (COA). The court withdrew the prior order and substituted the following opinion.The court held that jurists of reason would not find it debatable that the district court was correct in its determining that his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion was time-barred because Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. —, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016), made Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. —, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), in which the Supreme Court invalidated the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), retroactive to cases on collateral review. The court held that section 924(c)(3)(B) remained valid, even in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. —, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), and related precedent. Accordingly, the court denied the certificate of appealability. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop. The court held that the initial traffic stop was valid; and when the license check began, the officer had already developed reasonable suspicion that another crime was afoot. In this case, defendant's answers to some of the officer's questions were suspicious and there were modifications to the vehicle's trailer that could, and did, contain a hidden compartment containing contraband. Therefore, the totality of the circumstances led the officers, based on their training and experience, to conclude that the trailer contained a hidden compartment—a conclusion that, with all the other circumstances, supported probable cause. View "United States v. Villafranco-Elizondo" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess, with the intent to distribute, cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. 70503(a)(1), 70506(a) & (b) and 21 U.S.C. 960. The court followed its precedent in strictly construing the safety valve provision and holding that section 70503 was not specifically provided for under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f), but also was not an offense under section 960. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying defendant safety valve relief. The court further held that the district court did not clearly err by denying defendant a two-level sentencing reduction in his offense level for playing a minor role in the conspiracy. View "United States v. Anchundia-Espinoza" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for bringing methamphetamine from Mexico into the United States. The court held that, although the government engaged in misconduct where the prosecution used drug profiling evidence and bolstered witnesses' credibility, defendant failed to meet the heavy burden of obtaining reversal for the errors because he did not object to them during trial. The court also held that there was no clear Confrontation Clause violation when an agent mentioned a tip implicating defendant. Finally, there was no cumulative error in this case. View "United States v. Sosa" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and dismissed defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant argued that his sentence should not have been enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court held that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), was not a jurisdictional predicate for defendant's motion and thus the district court did not have jurisdiction to reach the merits of the motion. View "United States v. Wiese" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. The Fifth Circuit held that, to the extent defendant challenged the reliability of the presentence report's determination that he admittedly reentered the United States illegally on November 23, 2010, he has forfeited that argument by raising it for the first time in his reply brief. Even if the claim were not forfeited, the district court did not err by relying on defendant's admitted date of entry. The court also held that defendant's contention that his prior convictions should not have been used to enhance his sentence under USSG 2L1.2(b) was without merit, because defendant's prior convictions were within the requisite time period from his illegal reentry date in order to receive criminal history points under USSG 4A1.2(e)(1). Finally, the court held that defendant failed to show that the extent of the district court's downward departure based on the age of his 1996 conviction constituted an abuse of discretion. View "United States v. Solis Ponce" on Justia Law

On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing in light of Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018).The district court had denied defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels in the drug quantity table of U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(c). In Hughes, the Supreme Court abrogated this circuit's holding in United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807, 810 (5th Cir. 2016), and held that a sentence imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c) or "Type-C" plea agreement was typically based on the sentencing guideline range because the court must first evaluate the stipulated sentence in light of the defendant's sentencing guideline range. The Court further held that a sentence imposed pursuant to a Type–C agreement is based on the defendant's Guidelines range so long as that range was part of the framework the district court relied on in imposing the sentence or accepting the agreement. In this case, defendant entered into a Type-C agreement and his sentence was based on his guideline range because it was part of the framework the court relied upon in imposing his sentence. View "United States v. Armstead" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Christopher Young's requests to stay his execution. Young alleged that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles' decision not to recommend commutation to the Governor violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction in this case, but that Young failed to show that he was likely to succeed on the merits. The court explained that Young has not made a strong showing that if the court were to temporarily stay the execution and allow discovery, he would find evidence of discrimination. View "Young v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's restitution order imposed after defendant pleaded guilty to one count of producing child pornography, one count of transporting child pornography, and one count of possessing child pornography. Defendant was sentenced to 600 months in prison and ordered to pay $1,443,619.63 in restitution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2259. Defendant argued that the restitution order contravened Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014), because the district court failed to determine whether his conduct proximately caused the victims' alleged losses. In this case, the fact that the district court entered a legally binding restitution order without ensuring that the amount was authorized by statute was sufficient to warrant the court's exercise of discretion under the fourth prong of plain error review. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Winchel" on Justia Law