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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring with intent to distribute cocaine. The court held that defendant was aware of his sentencing exposure and would have pleaded guilty regardless of any error in the district court's admonishment; the forfeiture order must stand in spite of the district court's procedural shortcomings; and the district court did not clearly err in imposing a leadership-role adjustment under USSG 3B1.1(b) and in denying defendant an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1(a). However, the court remanded for the district court to determine whether the condition of supervised release imposed in his judgment is consistent with the court's oral pronouncement at sentencing. View "United States v. Omigie" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated special conditions of supervised release that prevented defendant from using the Internet, computers, and other electronic devices for the ten years following his initial sentence of 151 months. The special conditions were imposed after defendant pleaded guilty to child pornography charges.Considering the presentencing report's explanation and the fact that defendant used computers and the Internet in the commission of his offenses, the court can infer the district court's rationale for imposing special conditions restricting his computer and Internet use. Therefore, the district court did not procedurally err. However, the court held that the district court erred in imposing absolute ten-year bans on computer and Internet use, because the conditions fail to ensure no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. Because the error was plain and affected defendant's substantial rights, the court exercised its discretion to correct the error. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempted enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; the district court did not err by declining to give defendant's jury instruction on the definition of enticement because the instruction was not a substantively correct statement of circuit law; defendant's 240 month sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court did not err by failing to adequately consider a sentencing departure under USSG 4A1.3 for underrepresentation of his criminal history before imposing an upward variance; and the district court's factual recitations in the presentencing report contain indicia of reliability and defendant failed to present rebuttal evidence. View "United States v. Peterson" on Justia Law

After the Chairman refused to issue media pass cards to certain individuals that would have given them access to the floor of the House chamber, the individuals and their employer filed suit alleging constitutional violations.The Fifth Circuit held that exceptional circumstances justifying a court's moving beyond actual mootness will be less likely found when the party seeking review failed to utilize the procedures that had been available. A party seeking to continue litigation after time has run out should not be allowed to do so when it failed to use the time it had.The court applied these considerations to this appeal and held that this case has become moot and is not saved by the exception for cases capable of repetition, yet evading review. Therefore, the court lacked authority to review the legislative-immunity issue. The court explained that Empower did not utilize the opportunities it had in its first suit, and thus cannot complain that the dispute has evaded review. In this case, although Empower requested credentials before the Regular Session of the 86th Texas Legislature began, the House Business Office's requests for more information and Empower's responses delayed a decision. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded to the district court for the suit to be dismissed. View "Empower Texans, Inc. v. Geren" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Texas resident, filed suit against Allstate Texas, a Texas entity, seeking damages for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Texas Insurance Code, the Texas Business and Commerce Code, and the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Allstate Illinois, rather than Allstate Texas, answered the petition and removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) and 1441(b).The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to remand to state court, and remanded with instructions for the district court to remand to state court. The court held that Allstate Illinois lacked the authority to remove the suit to federal court and the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case when it denied plaintiff's motion to remand because the only parties to the case at the time of removal was plaintiff and Allstate Texas, both Texas residents. In this case, Allstate Illinois was not a defendant as originally filed and did not become a defendant through proper means. View "Valencia v. Allstate Texas Lloyd's" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim alleging that the seizure of his vehicle violated his clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the officer investigating a hit-and-run incident came across one of the cars involved and seized it without obtaining a warrant. The court held that the warrantless seizure was constitutional, because there was probable cause to believe that the vehicle was an instrument or evidence of crime. Therefore, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. View "Rountree v. Lopinto" on Justia Law

A defendant cannot demand that his federal sentence run concurrently with a state sentence without establishing that both are premised on the same conduct. The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's offense, holding that the district court did not violate USSG 5G1.3(c) by failing to impose a concurrent sentence. In this case, defendant failed to present evidence that his state offense was part of the same course of conduct as the federal stolen mail offense. Nor did he present evidence that the offenses were part of a common scheme or plan. The court also held that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Sanchez Ochoa" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's order staying administrative proceedings that were initiated by the FTC against the Board under the Federal Trade Commission Act. The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the Board's lawsuit because the Act vests exclusive jurisdiction to review challenges to Commission proceedings in the courts of appeals.The court held that, even if the Act does not preclude the Administrative Procedure Act's default review provision, 5 U.S.C. 704,—an issue the court need not address—the Board fails to meet Section 704's jurisdictional prerequisites. The court explained that case law does not support jurisdiction based on the collateral order doctrine as applied through Section 704. In this case, the issues relevant to immunity pertain to the reach of the Sherman Act and thus a judicial decision at this point would not resolve an issue completely separate from the merits of the action. Therefore, the April 10, 2018 order does not constitute final agency action under Section 704, and the collateral order doctrine does not apply. View "Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board v. Federal Trade Commission" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for three firearms offenses, but vacated his sentence in part, remanding for amendment of the written judgment by removing an unpronounced special condition. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction under an aiding-and-abetting theory of making false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm, as well as making false statements with respect to information that a licensed firearms dealer is required to keep in its records; the evidence was also sufficient to support his conviction of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon; but the district court abused its discretion by including, in the written judgment, a special condition of supervised release that it omitted from the oral pronouncement of sentence. View "United States v. Fields" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed three conditions of supervised release imposed as part of defendant's sentence for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court delayed hearing the appeal pending en banc consideration of United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc), where the court held that a sentencing court pronounces supervision conditions when it orally adopts a document recommending those conditions.The court held that, in this case, the sentencing court's oral pronouncement of truncated versions was such an adoption. Here, after giving defendant notice of the proposed conditions in both the presentencing report and the standing order, it was clear that the district court adopted the full terms of those conditions orally at the sentencing hearing. View "United States v. Grogan" on Justia Law