Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery, and possessing and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's firearm conviction because Hobbs Act robbery falls within the definition of crime of violence; vacated his sentence for the Hobbs Act robbery count because the district court erred by imposing the physical restraint enhancement where defendant did not do anything with his firearm that went beyond what would normally occur during an armed robbery; and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Even in light of Amendment 794's clarifying guidance to USSG 3B1.2, it is proper for a sentencing court to consider the "critical" or "essential" nature of a defendant's role when assessing application of section 3B1.2. However, a sentencing court may not deny the adjustment on this ground alone. In this case, defendant appealed his 155 month sentence after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The district court's explanation at sentencing for its denial of the mitigating-role reduction strongly suggested that the district court made outcome determinative its finding that defendant's role was "critical." Furthermore, this error pretermitted the district court's application of section 3B1.1 and the applicable commentary. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Sanchez-Villarreal" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the Commission's determination that the federal offense most analogous to defendant's crime was second-degree murder. Petitioner, an American who killed his girlfriend in Mexico, was sentenced for "qualified homicide committed with advantage" under the Baja Penal Code. Second-degree murder under United States law requires a finding that a human being was killed with malice aforethought. The Fifth Circuit held that the Commission did not clearly err in finding that defendant acted with malice when he hit his girlfriend in the face with a hammer a few times and then strangled her to death. In this case, there was scant evidence of provocation; defendant fabricated a story to deflect attention from his malicious crime; and there was evidence that the heat of passion had time to cool when defendant walked down and up a flight of stairs to obtain the hammer and then strangle the victim. View "Frascarelli v. USPC" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and aiding and abetting retaliation against a witness in a crime investigation. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress, because even if the Ping Order for authorization to obtain the locations of cell site towers being accessed by a cellular device was issued in violation of federal or state law, defendant was not entitled to suppression. The court explained that suppression is not a remedy for a violation of either the federal pen-trap statute or the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In the alternative, even if accessing prospective cell site data did constitute a Fourth Amendment search, DPS's actions were covered by the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress, and dismissed as moot defendant's request for remand for resentencing regarding his aiding and abetting conviction. View "United States v. Wallace" on Justia Law

Defendants Ocampo-Vergara, Salazar, and Ortiz-Fernandez were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction; Ortiz-Salazar's evidentiary challenges failed because all the evidence at issue was relevant to show that he was a member of the conspiracy and none of it was unfairly prejudicial; the district court did not plainly err by permitting the testimony of a DEA agent where Ortiz-Salazar failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that his trial would have come out differently but for the illegitimate aspects of the agent's testimony; and, even assuming that the district court erred by admitting certain summary charts, such error was harmless. View "United States v. Ocampo-Vergara" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal, he challenged the application of a 16-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2L1.2 for a prior drug trafficking conviction. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that defendant's 120-day sentence was a sentence of imprisonment, regardless of whether he served it in whole or in part through the work release program under California Penal Code section 4024.2. Based on his cumulative 485-day sentence, defendant was previously convicted of a felony during a trafficking offense for which the sentence exceeded 13 months. The court also held that, even assuming the district court's reliance on the plea document was error, the error was harmless. Finally, United States v. Garcia-Carrillo, 749 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2014), was dispositive of defendant's argument that the court should remand for the district court to determine whether a lesser sentence was appropriate under an amendment to the Guidelines that took effect after the date of his sentence. In Garcia-Carrillo, the court held that it is not plain error for a district court to fail to consider a non-retroactive post-sentencing amendment to the Guidelines, even if it might have affected the sentence imposed by the district court. View "United States v. Enrique-Ascencio" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction. The court held that the district court's stated view that its hands were tied with regard to reducing the money-laundering sentence was error. The court explained that if a reduction was appropriate for the drug-trafficking offense levels, then it was appropriate for money-laundering as well. The error affected defendant's substantial rights and the court chose to exercise its discretion to correct the error. View "United States v. Torres" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial, holding that the Government did not breach the plea agreement. In this case, the Government was not estopped from recommending that the district court deny a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and to instead apply a two-level increase for obstructing justice. Furthermore, the record did not support defendant's claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness. View "United States v. Cluff" on Justia Law

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C .1915(g), a third strike bars a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. A strike issues when a prisoner's action is dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. However, a strike does not issue when only some claims are dismissed on section 1915(g) grounds. In this case, plaintiff's claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim while others were adequately pleaded but failed at summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, but vacated the strike because the strike did not issue when only some of plaintiff's claims were dismissed on section 1915(g) grounds. View "Brown v. Megg" on Justia Law

Defendant and others opened fire at a second-line parade in New Orleans on Mother's Day 2013, shooting a rival gang member and 19 innocent bystanders. Defendant pleaded guilty to charges related to the shooting pursuant to a written plea agreement. The Fifth Circuit held that the Government did not breach the plea agreement by presenting evidence of an unrelated murder at sentencing; rejected defendant's claim that the Government's misleading statements and failure to disclose evidence rendered his plea unknowing and involuntary; and denied plaintiff's ineffective assistance of counsel claim without prejudice to collateral review. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law