Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed the district court's imposition of a three-year term of supervised release as part of his criminal sentence. Defendant objected to the reasonableness of the 46 months of imprisonment and then added, "[a]lso [I] object to the term of supervised release that's imposed as an upward departure," to which the district court responded, "[t]hank you, sir." The court held that, in light of the district court's particularized remark at sentencing, defendant's sentence did not constitute error, plain or otherwise, Accordingly, the sentence was affirmed and the case remanded for amendment of the written judgment to conform to the oral sentence.

Defendant appealed his 264-month sentence following his guilty plea to sexual exploitation of children. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of a two-level enhancement for distribution of explicit materials involving a minor under U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(3). The court affirmed the application of the enhancement and concluded that the district court properly determined that a co-defendant's distribution of images that defendant helped to create was relevant conduct attributable to defendant.

Defendant appealed his non-Guidelines sentence of 108-months of imprisonment for illegal reentry. The court held that the district court did not lack jurisdiction to impose the 108-month sentence. The court held, however, that given the entire sentencing hearing, particularly the district court's implicit threat to raise defendant's sentence if he questioned the non-Guidelines sentence, the court concluded that the 108-month, non-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable because it constituted a clear error in judgment in balancing the sentencing factors under the totality of the circumstances. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded the judgment.

Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the district court's judgment denying his petition for habeas relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Martinez v. Ryan. Petitioner argued that Martinez invalidated the district court's conclusion that he procedurally defaulted on his certificate of appealability issues. The court concluded that Texas procedures did not mandate that ineffectiveness claims be heard in the first instance in habeas proceedings and they did not by law deprive Texas defendants of counsel-and court-driven guidance in pursuing ineffectiveness claims. Therefore, the court held that petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Martinez for his ineffectiveness claims, as Texas procedures entitled him to review through counselled motions for new trial and direct appeal. Accordingly, the court denied petitioner's motion to vacate the district court's judgment.

David Scruggs pleaded guilty to a one-count superseding information charging misprision of a felony. After he was released from prison but before the conclusion of his term of supervised release, Scruggs filed a motion to vacate conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. After a hearing, the district court denied Scruggs's section 2255 motion and granted a certificate of appealability on three issues. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because the information charged an offense against the laws of the United States, Scruggs's claim that, under Skilling v. United States, the district court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea was without merit; (2) Scruggs failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest; and (3) Scruggs failed to show that alleged governmental misconduct induced him to plea guilty.

Defendant was found guilty of conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine base, conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Defendant was sentenced to a total of 420 months' imprisonment. After he exhausted his remedies on direct appeal, Defendant filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective. The district court denied Defendant's motion. At issue before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was whether Defendant's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising him not to testify on his own behalf. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that because Defendant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced, he did not establish a constitution violation and was not entitled to section 2255 relief.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered these cases jointly because they raised a single issue: whether Defendants, who were convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, among other things, were entitled to be sentenced according to the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) when their illegal conduct preceded the FSA but their sentencing proceedings occurred post-enactment. The Fifth Circuit held that the penalties described by the FSA did not apply to federal criminal sentencing for illegal conduct that preceded the FSA's enactment, and therefore, the sentences imposed by the district courts in these cases were affirmed. However, after the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion in these consolidated cases, the Supreme Court decided Dorsey v. United States, which held, contrary to the Fifth Circuit's opinion, that the more lenient penalties of the FSA apply to offenders who committed an offense before the Act was passed but were sentenced after the Act was enacted. The Fifth Circuit, therefore, vacated and remanded these cases for resentencing consistent with the Court's holding in Dorsey.

Appellants Walter Teel, Paul Minor and John Whitfield raised several appellate issues arising from their final amended judgments of convictions and sentences entered by the district court after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case for resentencing in United States v. Whitfield. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment on remand, holding (1) Appellants' argument that the jury instructions erroneously defined honest-services fraud were barred by the mandate rule; (2) Appellants' argument that the indictment was erroneous for failure to state an offense was also barred by the mandate rule; and (3) the district court did not err in sentencing Minor and Whitfield.

Defendant Adrian Alvarado appealed his 170-month prison sentence and life term of supervised relief following a guilty plea to the receipt of child pornography. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part, holding (1) the portion of the district court's order regarding Defendant's prison term was not in error, as it was both procedurally and substantively reasonable; but (2) the sentencing judge plainly erred by automatically imposing a lifetime term of supervised release without engaging in any analysis of the circumstances surrounding Defendant's crime, an error that affected Defendant's substantial rights.

A jury found Defendant guilty of possessing crack cocaine with the intent to distribute it. On appeal, Defendant contended that reversible error occurred when portions of two 911 calls were admitted into evidence because the recordings contained testimonial hearsay that violated his Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the admission of the 911 recordings did not violate Defendant's right to confrontation because the 911 caller's statements did not constitute testimonial hearsay; (2) the 911 caller's statements were admissible as present sentence impression under Fed. R. Evid. 803(1).