Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Joseph Lee Betancourt was convicted for firearms possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the felon-in-possession statute. The case arose when Harris County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a 911 call reporting that Betancourt had brandished a firearm during an argument. Upon searching his home, deputies found firearms, ammunition, and body armor. Betancourt had prior felony convictions for aggravated assault, which served as the predicate for his prosecution under § 922(g)(1).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Betancourt’s motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment. Betancourt entered a plea agreement, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to time served and three years of supervised release. Betancourt then appealed the district court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which requires determining if the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the regulated conduct and if the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court also referenced United States v. Rahimi, which upheld prohibitions on firearm possession by individuals posing a credible threat to safety.The Fifth Circuit held that Betancourt’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge failed. The court found that Betancourt’s aggravated assault convictions, which involved reckless driving and causing serious injuries, demonstrated that he posed a threat to public safety. The court concluded that disarming Betancourt was consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Betancourt" on Justia Law

In this case, Donovan and Orlando Bourrage were found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. The investigation began in January 2020, involving controlled purchases from Donovan and a wiretap authorized in May 2020. The wiretap captured conversations between the Bourrage cousins and their co-conspirators discussing drug prices and transactions. Evidence included intercepted calls, testimony from a co-conspirator, and a subsequent wiretap in July 2020 that recorded Donovan's dealings with another supplier. Orlando was also found in possession of marijuana and a firearm in September 2020.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied the defendants' motion to suppress evidence obtained via wiretaps, ruling the motion untimely and the defendants lacked standing. The court also denied a request for a Franks hearing and found the wiretap orders were facially sufficient. The jury found both defendants guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced them, including enhancements for managing or supervising the conspiracy and, for Orlando, possessing a firearm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding the defendants had standing to challenge the wiretaps but the motion to suppress was untimely. The court held that the district court did not err in denying a Franks hearing or in finding the wiretap orders sufficient. The court also upheld the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict and the sentencing enhancements, concluding that the evidence showed the defendants' involvement in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and that the enhancements were appropriate based on their roles and conduct. The court affirmed the judgments of the district court. View "United States v. Bourrage" on Justia Law

Scott Davis purchased property in Tomball, Texas, using fraudulently obtained loan proceeds from the Paycheck Protection Program. He later used this property as collateral to secure a $360,000 loan from Gravity Capital. Davis pleaded guilty to wire fraud and agreed to forfeit the Tomball property. The district court issued a preliminary order of forfeiture and notified interested parties. E. Alan Tiras and Gravity Funding filed ancillary petitions claiming an interest in the property. The district court granted Tiras' petition but denied Gravity Funding's petition due to a drafting error, as the petition was signed on behalf of Gravity Funding instead of Gravity Capital.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found that Gravity Funding had no interest in the loan issued to Davis, and Gravity Capital was not a party to the petition. Consequently, the court denied Gravity Funding's petition. Gravity Funding and Gravity Capital appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the petition failed to comply with 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) because it was signed by Gravity Funding, not Gravity Capital. The court also noted that any attempt to amend the petition to include Gravity Capital was untimely, as it was made eleven months after the statutory deadline. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Gravity Capital's failure to assert a valid interest under § 853(n) also invalidated its challenge to the Tiras petition. The court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements in forfeiture cases. View "United States v. Tiras" on Justia Law

In 2009, Wesley Swick pled guilty to possessing a stolen firearm and was sentenced to 33 months in prison and two years of supervised release. His federal sentence was to run concurrently with longer state sentences. Swick was released from state prison in 2017 but did not report to federal probation as required. His failure to report went unnoticed until after his supervised release period should have ended. During this time, Swick committed several state crimes and served additional time in state prison.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas revoked Swick's supervised release based on his failure to report and subsequent criminal activities. The court asserted jurisdiction using the fugitive tolling doctrine, which pauses the supervised release period when a supervisee absconds from supervision. Swick was sentenced to 24 months in prison, to run consecutively with a separate federal sentence for a felon-in-possession charge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that fugitive tolling applies to supervised release, meaning that Swick's supervised release period was tolled when he failed to report to probation. The court found sufficient evidence to support the district court's conclusion that Swick intentionally avoided supervision, as he did not report to federal probation despite knowing his obligation to do so. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to revoke Swick's supervised release and the imposition of the 24-month prison sentence. View "United States v. Swick" on Justia Law

Erick Jose Sandoval Argueta, a Salvadoran national, was lawfully present in the United States when he solicited sex over the internet from someone he believed to be a thirteen-year-old girl, who was actually an undercover police officer. He was convicted in Texas of online solicitation of a minor. Based on this conviction, an immigration judge (IJ) ordered him removed for committing a "crime of child abuse." The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed this decision.Sandoval Argueta filed two petitions for review. In the first, he challenged the BIA's determination of his removability and its denial of his motion to reconsider. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that Sandoval Argueta had been convicted of multiple crimes, including property theft, drug trafficking, and online solicitation of a minor. The government initially charged him with removability based on the solicitation conviction but later added charges related to his drug trafficking conviction. After the drug trafficking conviction was vacated, the government reasserted the "crime of child abuse" charge.The Fifth Circuit held that the best reading of "crime of child abuse" under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) includes convictions for online solicitation of a minor, even if no actual child was involved. The court reasoned that the statute's broad language encompasses offenses that create a high risk of harm to a child, including attempt offenses. Therefore, Sandoval Argueta's conviction under Texas Penal Code § 33.021(c) categorically met the definition of a "crime of child abuse."In his second petition, Sandoval Argueta argued that the BIA erred by not considering his equitable tolling argument when denying his motion to reconsider. The Fifth Circuit found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, as it was procedurally barred by statutory limits on the number of motions to reconsider and the prohibition on reconsidering a decision on a prior motion to reconsider.The Fifth Circuit denied both petitions for review. View "Argueta v. Bondi" on Justia Law

In 2022, the Midland Police Department responded to a domestic disturbance involving Billy Joe Russell and his girlfriend. Upon arrival, the police ordered Russell to exit the vehicle, and he informed them of a handgun in the car, which he later admitted to possessing. Russell, a felon, pleaded guilty to being in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His presentence investigation report (PSR) calculated his base offense level to be 26 due to his prior convictions for two violent felonies and possession of a firearm capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine. The district court applied a three-point reduction for accepting responsibility, resulting in a net offense level of 23, and sentenced him to 115 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Russell did not object to the PSR or his sentence.Russell appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the district court's categorization of his 2017 Tennessee aggravated-assault conviction as a crime of violence (COV). He argued that the district court plainly erred in this categorization. The Fifth Circuit reviewed the case for plain error, as Russell had not objected to the categorization at the district court level.The Fifth Circuit defined a guidelines COV and applied the categorical approach to determine if Russell's 2017 conviction qualified as a COV. The court found that Russell failed to show a clear or obvious error in the district court's categorization of his 2017 conviction as a COV. Russell did not provide any case law to support his interpretation that Tennessee's aggravated-assault statute criminalizes conduct causing solely mental harm. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding Russell's sentence. View "United States v. Russell" on Justia Law

On May 14, 2022, the Lake Charles Police Department responded to a call about gunshots on N. Lyons Street. Officers approached Kirk August's home and found him in his backyard. A neighbor informed the officers that she had seen August firing a handgun. The officers conducted a protective sweep of the backyard, finding shell casings and a sign with bullet holes. They then conducted a protective sweep of the home, using keys retrieved from a car in the driveway, where they also found methamphetamine and ammunition. A search warrant was later obtained, leading to the discovery of firearms and more ammunition in the home.August was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court denied his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the searches. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, and the district court adopted this recommendation. August pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. He was sentenced to 63 months in prison and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the protective sweeps of the backyard and home were justified by exigent circumstances, as the officers had reasonable suspicion of danger. The court also held that the independent source doctrine applied, as the search warrant was supported by probable cause independent of any potentially tainted evidence. The court affirmed the district court's decision, allowing the evidence obtained from the searches to be used against August. View "USA v. August" on Justia Law

Customs and Border Protection officers seized a tractor-trailer at the Columbia Solidarity Bridge Port of Entry in Laredo, Texas, which was carrying liquid methamphetamine concealed in the fuel tanks. Noe de Jesus Martinez-Montelongo was driving the vehicle, and Fidel Saldana Rodriguez was the passenger. Both were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to import and importation of methamphetamine. Saldana challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions, while Martinez-Montelongo challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied both defendants' motions for judgment of acquittal and sentenced them to 235 months of imprisonment each. Saldana argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to prove he knew about the methamphetamine, while Martinez-Montelongo argued that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court improperly considered his failure to admit guilt.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Saldana's sufficiency challenge de novo and found that the evidence, including inconsistent statements, the use of a stick to measure fuel levels, and WhatsApp messages, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Saldana knowingly participated in the conspiracy. The court affirmed Saldana's convictions.Regarding Martinez-Montelongo's sentence, the court found that the district court did not rely on his lack of remorse in its § 3553(a) analysis. The district court's references to the defendants' insistence on innocence were to explain why they were being sentenced and why they were not eligible for certain sentencing reductions. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed Martinez-Montelongo's sentence. View "United States v. Martinez-Montelongo" on Justia Law

Roy Lee Jones, Jr. was involved in a methamphetamine-trafficking organization in North-Central Louisiana. He received large shipments of methamphetamine from his California-based supplier, DeLewis Johnson IV, and redistributed them to Willie Todd Harris, who then sold them to street-level dealers. After a ten-month investigation, federal law enforcement initiated grand jury proceedings, resulting in a five-count indictment. Jones was charged under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.Jones and Johnson were tried as co-defendants and convicted by a jury. The initial presentence report (PSR) calculated Jones' offense level as 37, recommending a Guidelines range of 210-262 months. The district court sentenced Jones to 210 months' imprisonment. Jones appealed his conviction and sentence, which were affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court denied Jones' petition for a writ of certiorari.Jones filed a motion for a sentence reduction under Amendments 821 and 825 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion, finding that Jones was ineligible for a reduction under USSG § 4C1.1(a)(10) because he had received an aggravating role enhancement under § 3B1.1 and had engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 848.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion, its interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error. The court held that either receiving a § 3B1.1 adjustment or engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise is sufficient to disqualify a defendant from a sentence reduction under § 4C1.1(a)(10). Since Jones received an aggravating role enhancement, he was ineligible for a reduction. The court affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendants Louis Age Jr., Louis Age III, Stanton Guillory, and Ronald Wilson were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for their roles in the murder-for-hire of Milton Womack, a federal witness in a healthcare fraud case. The defendants raised ten issues on appeal, including challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, and the jury selection process.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana convicted the defendants on multiple counts, including conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire, murder-for-hire, conspiracy to tamper with a federal witness, and witness tampering. The district court sentenced each defendant to at least one term of life imprisonment. The defendants appealed their convictions and sentences, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions and that the district court made several errors in admitting evidence and instructing the jury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found no error in the district court's rulings. The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence related to the defendants' prior criminal activities and in denying the defendants' motions to sever their trials. Additionally, the court held that the district court did not err in its jury instructions or in its handling of the jury selection process.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the defendants' convictions and sentences. The court concluded that the defendants' arguments on appeal were unpersuasive and that the district court had acted within its discretion in its rulings. View "United States v. Age" on Justia Law