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

The Criminal Justice Act (CJA) creates a system for the appointment and payment of counsel for defendants unable to afford representation. At issue here was subsection (c), which concerns the ability of district courts to appoint counsel in federal criminal prosecutions. Defendant, a Mexican national, pled guilty to illegal reentry. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a motion under subsection (c) for an additional court-appointed attorney to seek to have a prior state felony conviction set aside in an Iowa court. The prior Iowa conviction lengthened the advisory sentencing range for the illegal reentry offense. The district court determined the purpose would not be an appropriate use of CJA funds. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant's challenge to a prior, unrelated conviction in a state court that could affect the sentence he received on a new federal conviction was not an "ancillary matter" under the statute, and therefore, it was inappropriate to appoint counsel for Defendant in this case. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Kingsley Dayo petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture based on the government's violation of confidentiality in revealing to the Nigerian consulate that he had applied for asylum. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding (1) Dayo was allowed a separate claim for relief based on the breach of confidentiality; and (2) because the BIA considered this separate claim, and because its denial of relief on that ground was supported by substantial evidence, the petition for review was denied. View "Dayo v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to the charge of conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. He was not informed that his conviction made him eligible for deportation. Later, an immigration judge conducted a hearing and ordered Petitioner's removal. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Petitioner claimed derivative citizenship under 321 of the former Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The BIA denied Petitioner's appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because Petitioner's parents never legally separated, and because Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving that his mother was deceased, Petitioner failed to satisfy INA 321; and (2) INA 321 did not violate Petitioner's equal protection rights. View "Ayton v. Holder" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of Defendant's attempt to illegally reenter the United States at the United States-Mexico border. A jury convicted Defendant of attempted illegal reentry and for making a false statement to Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not unconstitutionally direct a verdict by commenting on the evidence while delivering the jury instructions and by its response to the jury's note; (2) the district court did not constructively amend the indictment by commenting on the evidence while delivering the jury instructions and responding to the jury's note; and (3) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Jara-Favela" on Justia Law

Salvadoran citizens Jose Orellana-Monson and his brother Andres entered the United States in 2005. They were charged with being in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. The Orellana-Monsons claimed asylum because of Jose's political opinions - specifically, opposition to gangs - and because they would be persecuted on account of their membership in a particular social group. Initially, an immigration judge rejected this argument, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The Fifth Circuit remanded the case for the BIA to explain the basis for its decision. On remand, the BIA dismissed the appeal, determining that Salvadoran young adults who were subjected to, and who rejected, recruitment efforts of gangs did not possess the social visibility and particularity to constitute "membership in a particular social group" for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision, holding that the Orellana-Monsons did not demonstrate that they were eligible for status under the "particular social group" prong of the INA's eligibility criteria for asylum. View "Orellana-Monson v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of structuring financial transactions to evade federal reporting requirements. DHS subsequently attempted to introduce defendant's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) in a removal proceeding; the immigration court refused to admit the PSR without the district court's approval, which DHS then sought. Defendant in turn requested criminal contempt sanctions against the DHS attorneys who pursued disclosure of his PSR. The district court granted DHS's motion after redacting much of defendant's information and denied the sanctions request. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the United States v. Huckaby factors, for determining a "compelling, particularized need for disclosure," nor did it err in evaluating and balancing those factors. Further, that court did not abuse its discretion in declining to initiate contempt proceedings, as DHS's attorneys did not contumaciously violate a clear order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Iqbal" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. 1326. At issue was whether the record evidence was sufficient to justify the trial judge's conclusion that defendant was an alien at the time of his reentry. The court found that there was substantial evidence showing that defendant was an alien when he reentered the United States. The court also found that the nunc pro tunc divorce decree obtained in 2010 purporting to retroactively rearrange defendant's custody status in 1994 did not raise a reasonable doubt as to this alienage. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Esparza" on Justia Law

The City appealed the district court's summary judgment enjoining it from implementing a purported housing ordinance that required all adults living in rental housing within the City to obtain an occupancy license conditioned upon the occupant's citizenship or lawful immigration status. The court concluded that the ordinance's sole purpose was not to regulate housing but to exclude undocumented aliens, specifically Latinos, from the City and that it was an impermissible regulation of immigration. The court held that the ordinance was unconstitutional and presented an obstacle to federal authority on immigration and the conduct of foreign affairs. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Villas at Parkside Partners, et al. v. City of Farmers Branch, Texas" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to lying about his U.S. citizenship on a Firearms Transaction Record form which he completed while attempting to purchase a handgun. Defendant also pled guilty to illegal re-entry to the United States after deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony. Defendant appealed the district court's decision on his ineffective counsel claim where defendant claimed counsel failed to independently research and investigate the derivative citizenship defense. The court concluded that defendant's guilty pleas were not entered knowingly or voluntarily because counsel advised him without investigating derivative citizenship. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings.

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens, conspiracy to conceal or harbor illegal aliens, and two counts of harboring or concealing illegal aliens, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), (v)(I), and (a)(1)(B)(I). The Fifth Circuit affirmed, upholding the district court's admission of expert testimony by federal law enforcement agents regarding usual locations of passengers in the vehicles used to transport illegal aliens; use of multiple bailouts in illegal alien trafficking; the role of guides; and relationships among drivers, guides, and recruiters. An agent's statement identifying a particular phone number as belonging to unindicted co-conspirator was hearsay, but not prejudicial.