Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Hector Flores, Jr. was sentenced to five years of probation under the Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA) for child endangerment, a state jail felony under Texas Penal Code § 22.041. The offense occurred on federal property, Big Bend National Park, where Flores placed his daughter in imminent danger by not providing food for four days in freezing temperatures. After violating his probation terms by testing positive for cocaine, the district court revoked his probation and resentenced him to two years of imprisonment followed by one year of supervised release.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially sentenced Flores to probation. After he violated the terms of his probation, the court revoked his probation and imposed a new sentence of two years of imprisonment, the maximum allowed under Texas law for his offense, followed by one year of supervised release. Flores appealed, arguing that the additional one-year term of supervised release exceeded the maximum sentence authorized by Texas law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that under the ACA, a federal court may impose a term of supervised release in addition to the maximum term of imprisonment allowed by state law. The court reasoned that supervised release serves rehabilitative purposes distinct from imprisonment and does not extend the term of imprisonment. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the combined sentence of imprisonment and supervised release was permissible under federal law and consistent with the ACA's requirement for "like punishment." View "USA v. Flores" on Justia Law

Detective Jeff Scroggins of the Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office suspected Quwinton Norman of supplying methamphetamine to Fleet Wallace, a narcotics distributor. Scroggins applied for search warrants for Norman’s apartment and a nearby house where Norman stayed after a drug transaction. The affidavit supporting the warrants included summaries of text messages between Norman and Wallace and observations of Norman’s activities. A Louisiana state court judge issued the warrants, and officers found drugs, cash, and other incriminating items in the house and Norman’s vehicle. Norman was indicted on federal charges of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine.Norman moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the affidavit did not establish probable cause and was bare bones. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana held a hearing and granted the motion to suppress. The government appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s ruling, examining the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The court determined that the good-faith exception applied because the affidavit was not bare bones. It contained specific facts and circumstances, such as text messages indicating drug transactions and observations of Norman’s movements, which allowed officers to reasonably believe there was a nexus between the house and evidence of drug trafficking. The court concluded that the state judge could draw reasonable inferences from the affidavit to determine probable cause. Therefore, the good-faith exception applied, and the court reversed the district court’s order excluding the evidence and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Norman" on Justia Law

Matthew Kerns, the sole member and manager of Glade Creek Livestock, LLC, personally guaranteed a loan from First State Bank of Ben Wheeler (FSBBW) using equipment and cattle as collateral. When Glade Creek faced financial difficulties, Kerns sold some of the cattle, leading FSBBW to demand full repayment. Kerns filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and during the automatic stay, FSBBW reported the sale of the collateral to a special ranger with the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA). This led to Kerns' indictment and arrest for hindering a secured creditor.The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of FSBBW, holding that FSBBW's actions fell within the safe harbor provision of the Annunzio-Wylie Money Laundering Act, which protects financial institutions from liability for reporting possible violations of law. Kerns appealed to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision. Kerns then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that FSBBW's report to the special ranger was protected under the safe harbor provision of the Annunzio-Wylie Act, as the special ranger qualified as law enforcement under Texas law. The court also found that Kerns had forfeited his argument for the recusal of the bankruptcy judge by not raising it earlier, despite knowing the basis for recusal since 2021. The court concluded that FSBBW's conduct was shielded from liability, and the summary judgment in favor of FSBBW was affirmed. View "Kerns v. First State Bank" on Justia Law

A neighbor called the Fort Worth Police Department at 2:25 a.m. on October 12, 2019, to report that Atatiana Jefferson's front door was open, which was unusual. Officer Aaron Dean and another officer responded, arriving at 2:28 a.m. and 2:29 a.m., respectively. Following protocol, they parked out of view and did not use emergency lights or sirens. They conducted a perimeter sweep of the house, using flashlights to look for signs of a break-in. Jefferson, who was home with her nephew, noticed someone outside and approached the window. Dean, without announcing himself as an officer, commanded Jefferson to show her hands and then fired a shot, killing her.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied Dean's motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity and stayed discovery. Dean appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's judgment regarding the excessive force claim, holding that Dean's use of deadly force without warning was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law. However, the court reversed the district court's judgment on the unreasonable search claim, finding that Dean was performing a community caretaking function and that there was no clearly established law indicating his actions were unreasonable. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Bakutis v. Dean" on Justia Law

Scot Fucito pled guilty to conspiracy to receive and distribute child pornography and was sentenced to 240 months in prison. Fucito had sent child pornography to an undercover agent (UC1) on multiple occasions, attempting to establish a rapport by discussing children and sexual activities. He sent links to child pornography videos and suggested meeting up if UC1 could get his daughter alone. A search of Fucito’s electronic devices revealed 704 child pornography images and 653 child exploitative images, many depicting severe abuse. Fucito was indicted on two counts but pled guilty to one, with the other count being dismissed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas applied the 2021 Sentencing Guidelines, determining a base offense level of 22, with 18 levels of enhancements, including five levels for distributing child pornography in exchange for valuable consideration and five levels for possessing 600 or more images. Fucito’s total offense level was 37, with a criminal history category of II, resulting in a recommended sentencing range of 235-240 months. The court overruled objections from both sides and sentenced Fucito to 240 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the sentence, clarifying that under United States v. Halverson, a defendant does not need to actually receive valuable consideration for distributing child pornography under USSG § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B). The court also held that duplicate electronic images count as distinct images for purposes of USSG § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D). Additionally, the court found no error in the district court’s decision not to grant Fucito a minor role reduction, as he did not meet the burden of showing he played a minor role in the conspiracy. View "U.S. v. Fucito" on Justia Law

Carlos Ray Kidd was convicted in federal court in 2007 for sending threatening communications and was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded the case for resentencing due to a miscalculation of the Sentencing Guidelines range. However, the resentencing hearing did not occur, and neither the Government nor Kidd’s counsel alerted the district court. Kidd continued to serve unrelated state sentences, believing his 2007 federal sentence was valid. In 2023, Kidd’s attorney discovered the oversight, and the resentencing hearing finally took place.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas initially sentenced Kidd to 60 months in 2007. After the remand, the district court failed to resentence Kidd, and he remained in state custody. In 2023, the district court resentenced Kidd to 60 months, denying his motion to dismiss the charges for denial of due process. The court found no prejudice resulted from the delay since Kidd was serving other sentences. Kidd appealed, arguing the delay violated his due process rights and that the district court erred in imposing the new sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the sixteen-year delay in resentencing did not violate Kidd’s due process rights because he suffered no prejudice from the delay. Kidd was continuously imprisoned for other sentences, and his federal sentence remained the same. The court also found that the district court did not err in denying the offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and that the 60-month sentence was substantively reasonable. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Kidd" on Justia Law

Arturo Garza, Jr. pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon and was initially sentenced to 75 months imprisonment by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Garza appealed, arguing that the district court erred in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense and an elevated base offense level for possessing the firearm near a large-capacity magazine. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with Garza, vacated his sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing.Upon remand, the district court removed the enhancement and held an evidentiary hearing, which confirmed the compatibility of the firearm and magazine, thus applying the elevated base offense level. On the day of the hearing, the district court also learned of additional criminal convictions against Garza since his original sentencing, which increased his criminal history score and raised his Guidelines range. Garza objected, arguing that considering these intervening sentences violated the Sentencing Guidelines and exceeded the scope of the appellate court's mandate. The district court disagreed and sentenced Garza to 87 months imprisonment, later reducing it to 75 months to account for time already served.Garza appealed again, contending that the district court misinterpreted U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 and violated the mandate rule. The Fifth Circuit reviewed these claims de novo and found no error. The court held that § 4A1.1 includes sentences imposed prior to resentencing and that the district court did not exceed the mandate, as the intervening sentences were not present during the original appeal. The court also rejected Garza's invocation of the rule of lenity, affirming the district court's decision. View "United States v. Garza" on Justia Law

In 1992, six-year-old Angelo Garcia, Jr. was kidnapped and murdered after two masked intruders broke into the apartment of his parents, Arturo Rodriguez and Diana Garcia. Diana was sexually assaulted during the incident. The case went cold until 2007 when DNA evidence linked Obel Cruz-Garcia to the crime. Cruz-Garcia was convicted of capital murder in 2013 and sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and his state habeas applications were denied.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Cruz-Garcia’s federal habeas petition. Cruz-Garcia then sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, raising three issues: jurors’ use of the Bible during deliberations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the exclusion of DNA evidence affecting his ability to present a complete defense.The Fifth Circuit denied the COA. The court found that the jurors’ reference to the Bible did not constitute an improper external influence, as it did not relate directly to the facts of the case. The court also determined that Cruz-Garcia’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims lacked merit, as his counsel’s performance was within the wide range of professionally competent assistance. Lastly, the court held that the trial court’s exclusion of certain DNA evidence did not violate Cruz-Garcia’s right to present a complete defense, as he was allowed to introduce other evidence regarding the DNA’s reliability.The Fifth Circuit concluded that Cruz-Garcia failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and denied his motion for a COA. View "Cruz-Garcia v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

George Peterson was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for illegal firearm transactions at his business, PDW Solutions, LLC, which he operated from his home. The ATF conducted undercover operations where Peterson sold firearms without reporting the transactions as required. Based on this, a magistrate judge issued a warrant to search Peterson's home and business. During the search, agents found an unregistered firearm suppressor in Peterson's bedroom-closet safe. Peterson was indicted for possession of an unregistered suppressor.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Peterson's pretrial motions to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds and to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. Peterson argued that the National Firearms Act's (NFA) registration requirement for suppressors violated his Second Amendment rights and that the search warrant lacked probable cause. The district court rejected these arguments, and Peterson entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that suppressors are not "Arms" protected by the Second Amendment, as they are accessories and not weapons themselves. Therefore, the NFA's registration requirement does not violate the Second Amendment. Additionally, the court found that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied, as the officers reasonably relied on the warrant issued by the magistrate judge. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Peterson's motions to dismiss and suppress. View "USA v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Ignacia Carmona, representing herself and the estate of Veronica Carmona, filed a lawsuit against the City of Brownsville and several officers, claiming that the officers failed to provide necessary medical care to Veronica Carmona, who died while in pretrial detention. Veronica had been involved in multiple car accidents on the same night and exhibited visible injuries. Despite this, the officers did not seek medical attention for her, and she was later found dead in her cell due to internal bleeding from liver lacerations.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the claims against the officers, granting them qualified immunity. The court concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the officers had subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to Veronica Carmona. The court found that the officers' failure to seek medical care did not amount to deliberate indifference because the injuries were not visibly apparent, and there were no complaints from Carmona that revealed the full extent of her injuries.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the officers were subjectively aware of the risk of internal bleeding. The court emphasized that actual knowledge of the risk is required for liability, and mere negligence or the fact that the officers should have known about the risk is insufficient. As a result, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, and the dismissal of the deliberate-indifference claims was upheld. View "Carmona v. Olvera" on Justia Law