Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Edward Teuschler pled guilty to distributing child pornography after he sent pornographic images to an undercover officer posing as a thirteen-year-old girl. The district court sentenced Defendant to 180 months imprisonment. Defendant appealed his sentence. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the district court, holding (1) pursuant to United States v. Fowler, the district court erred by imposing a three-level enhancement on Defendant's sentence based on the number of images involved; and (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that the Guidelines for child pornography crimes violate the Equal Protection Clause. Remanded for resentencing.

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.

Petitioner, an alien with a detainer placed against him, challenged the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition seeking the benefit of drug-rehabilitation programs and halfway house placement. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under section 2241 on grounds that the asserted claims should have been brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In the alternative, the district court held the case should be dismissed because Defendant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Finally, the court alternatively held, with respect to the merits, that Defendant had failed to state a claim for the denial of any constitutional right. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court (1) erred in its conclusion that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under section 4421; (2) erred in dismissing the complaint for Petitioner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies; but (3) correctly dismissed Petitioner's petition on the merits for failure to state a claim for the denial of any constitutional right, as Defendant failed to establish a denial of his due-process or equal-protection rights.

The government filed a two-count indictment charging Defendant and three other co-defendants with interference with commerce by robbery and conspiracy to commit the same offense. Defendant moved to dismiss the charges under the Speedy Trial Act because the indictment was filed more than thirty days after Defendant was transferred to federal custody. The government argued that the period of delay resulted from the absence of an essential witness, one of Defendant's co-conspirators, and therefore, the indictment was excluded from the thirty-day limit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(3)(A). The district court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the charges. Defendant later entered a conditional guilty to both counts. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction and vacated his sentence, holding (1) the government failed to show that the co-conspirator was an essential witness for the purposes of obtaining a grand jury indictment against Defendant, and therefore, the indictment was filed beyond the time allowed by the Speedy Trial Act. Remanded.

Petitioner was convicted in Mississippi of capital murder. Petitioner later filed a petition for habeas relief in federal district court. While acknowledging that Petitioner's habeas petition was filed more than one year after the state court judgment became final, the district court found that equitable tolling was warranted under the circumstances. The court subsequently denied habeas relief on all grounds raised but granted a Certificate of Appealability (COA) on Defendant's Batson claims and claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his trial. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to expand the COA with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The State of Mississippi appealed the district court's judgment holding that Petitioner's Batson claims were not procedurally barred and that the statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was equitably tolled in Defendant's case. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied his motion to expand the COA, holding that AEDPA's statute of limitations had run when Defendant filed his application for postconviction relief, and tolling was not warranted under these circumstances.

Appellant Jibreel Rashad, the owner of a construction company, was convicted and sentenced for violating the Hobbs Act in a crude pay-to-play scheme practiced by Dallas, Texas officials against low-income housing developers. The Fifth Circuit Court of appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant's conviction under the Hobbs Act for conspiracy to obstruct, delay or affect commerce by extortion; (2) the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not affect Appellant's substantial rights and were not prejudicial; and (3) the district court did not plainly err in imposing Appellant's sentence, and the sentence was not unreasonable.

Defendant was indicted on one count of attempting to persuade, induce, or entice a child to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) and one count of receipt of child pornography. The indictment stemmed from an incident in which Defendant communicated with an adult whom he believed to be the father of an eleven-year-old child about engaging in sexual activity with the child. Defendant moved to dismiss the enticement count on the basis that he never communicated directly with a child or anyone he believed to be a child. Defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea to the enticement count. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision not to dismiss the enticement charge after noting that Defendant directed some of his intended inducements to the child and took actions directed toward obtaining the child's assent through an intermediary. The Court then held that an individual can violate the statute solely through communications with an adult whom he knows to be an adult, and the contact with the child need not be direct under the statute.

At issue in this case was 18 U.S.C. 3509(m), which contains specific instructions that mandate government retention of child pornography evidence during criminal proceedings. Section 3509(m)'s retention mandate that child pornography remain in the government's possession applies as long as the material is made "reasonably available" to the defendant for purposes of Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. The statute further states that the material is "reasonably available" as long as the government provides "ample opportunity" for the defendant to inspect, view, and examine the material. The district court in this case found that the government failed to provide Defendant with ample opportunity to examine the child pornography evidence at a government facility. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the government did not provide Defendant with "ample opportunity" to inspect, view, or examine the material at the government facility.

Defendant, a federal sex offender, was convicted under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of failing to update his change of address when he moved intrastate. A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed. The panel majority rejected Defendant's argument that Congress did not have the power to criminalize Defendant's failure to register because it could not constitutionally reassert jurisdiction over his intrastate activities after his unconditional release from federal custody. The panel opinion was vacated by the Court's decision to rehear the case en banc. The Court then reversed and rendered a judgment of dismissal, holding that, under the specific and limited facts of this case, Defendant's commission of a federal crime was an insufficient basis for Congress to assert unending criminal authority over him.

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.