Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant sold investors secured debt obligations (SDOs) based on the loans his company made to used-car purchasers. Defendant misrepresented his credentials and insurance coverage on the investments and marketed his investment offerings as though they were as safe as FDIC-backed certificates of deposit. After a jury trial in which Defendant represented himself, Defendant was convicted of securities fraud. The district court sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison, three years' supervised release, and almost $7.3 million in restitution. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not plainly err in admitting a civil order at trial; (2) the jury did not convict Defendant on an invalid alternative theory; (3) the district court properly managed Defendant's pro se representation; (4) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (5) the district court did not err in imposing the sentence.

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.

A government informant set up a controlled drug deal with two unidentified men. Their conversations were recorded and admitted into evidence at Petitioner's trial in state court. Petitioner was subsequently convicted of the sale of cocaine as an aider and abettor. The intermediate appeals court reversed, concluding that the taped phone conversations constituted hearsay and that admitting them substantially prejudiced Petitioner, justifying a new trial. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the the trial court's judgment. Petitioner then filed a federal habeas petition arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court's admission of the taped phone conversations violated his constitutional rights of confrontation and cross-examination. The federal district court granted Petitioner's petition in part, concluding that that Petitioner's constitutional rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the unidentified individuals' statements were nontestimonial, and therefore, the statements were not within the scope of the Confrontation Clause, and Petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by their admission.

Defendant was indicted for frauds Defendant committed while serving as a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army in Iraq. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. Defendant's appeal dealt with a minimally developed area of law, the applicability of the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, which suspends the running of the statute of limitations for certain crimes when the United States is at war. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Act applied to Defendant and, accordingly, that the Government's indictment in this case was valid.

After a jury trial, former police officer Orlando Hale was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and using or carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense or possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Hale's conviction and sentence, holding, inter alia, that the district court (1) abused its discretion in finding that Hale waived his right to file a motion to dismiss based on a Speedy Trial Violation, but there was no violation of the Speedy Trial Act in this case; (2) did not err in excluding certain out-of-court statements as inadmissible hearsay; (3) did not plainly err by not instructing the jury on the substantive crime underlying the conspiracy, actual possession within intent to distribute cocaine; (4) did not err when it failed to include Hale's proposed jury instruction; and (5) did not err by applying two level enhancements to Hale's sentence.

This appeal arose out of the Government's indictment of Defendant for frauds Defendant committed while serving as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army in Iraq. At issue on appeal was the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 3287. Better known as the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, section 3284 suspends the running of the statute of limitations for certain crimes when the United States is at war. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment based on the expiration of the statute of limitations, which the district court denied based on the applicability of section 3287. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed, arguing that the termination clause in the Act prevented the Government's indictment of Defendant. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that since neither Congress nor the president met the formal requirements for terminating the Act's suspension of limitations as of the date of when the last of Defendant's criminal conduct occurred, section 3287 applies to Defendant, and accordingly, the Government's indictment in this case was valid.

Jose Marquez pleaded guilty to a two-count indictment charging him with participation in drug and money laundering conspiracies. After conducting a hearing, the district court sentenced Marquez to life in prison on count one and to 240 months on count two. In imposing its sentence, the district court applied firearm and leadership enhancements. Additionally, a subsequently entered written judgment of conviction ordered Marquez to forfeit $2,000,000. Marquez challenged the sentencing enhancements and the forfeiture order on appeal. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court's decision to apply the sentencing enhancements was not clearly erroneous; and (2) although certain deficiencies in the district court's handling of the forfeiture were plainly erroneous, because Marquez did not demonstrate that his substantial rights were affected by the district court's errors, he was not entitled to relief.

Defendant pled guilty to using a communication facility in committing conspiracy to possess cocaine hydrochloride with the intent to distribute it. Defendant was sentenced to three years of probation. Two years later, the probation office successfully petitioned the district court to issue a warrant for Defendant based on a violent incident that resulted in his arrest. The district court subsequently revoked Defendant's probation and sentenced him to four years of imprisonment with no term of supervised release. The court also ordered Defendant not to have contact with his daughter. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence the district court imposed upon revoking Defendant's probation, holding that because Defendant did now show the court committed a procedural error or that his sentence was substantively unreasonable, he did not show that his sentence was plainly unreasonable.

After a jury trial, Defendant Ryan Mudd was convicted of a single count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to seventy-seven months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release. Mudd appealed. The Fifth Circuit (1) affirmed Mudd's conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support to the conviction, as the evidence created a plausible inference of Mudd's guilty knowledge, an element of the crime; and (2) vacated Mudd's sentence in part, finding that a conflict existed between the district court's oral pronouncement at sentencing and written judgment. Remanded with instructions to conform the written judgment to the oral pronouncement at sentencing.

Plaintiff, a Texas prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint against the chaplain of the Preston Smith Unit and other defendants, alleging that he was denied religious devotional items that the chaplain had given him permission to order. After reviewing plaintiff's pro se appeal, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants because there was no genuine dispute as to any material facts.