Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Taegan Ray Contreras was charged with possessing a firearm as a felon, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statute violated the Second Amendment both facially and as applied to him. The district court denied the motion, and Contreras was convicted and sentenced. He appealed, raising the same constitutional challenges.The District Court for the Western District of Texas initially sentenced Contreras to 24 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release for being a user in possession of a firearm. While on supervised release, detectives found Contreras in possession of a firearm and marijuana. He was arrested and indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Contreras moved to dismiss the indictment, but the district court denied the motion, finding § 922(g)(1) constitutional. Contreras entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. He was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and forfeiture of the firearm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reiterated that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional and concluded that it is constitutional as applied to Contreras. The court found that the Second Amendment extends to convicted felons but upheld the statute, noting historical traditions of disarming felons and those under the influence of substances. The court held that § 922(g)(1) is consistent with historical regulations and principles, affirming Contreras' conviction. View "United States v. Contreras" on Justia Law

Jose Gomez Quiroz was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) for making a false statement while purchasing a firearm, as he allegedly denied being under indictment for a felony. He was also charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) for receiving a firearm while under indictment. A jury found him guilty on both counts. However, on the same day, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Quiroz then moved to dismiss the indictment, and the district court granted the motion, ruling that § 922(n) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Consequently, the court also dismissed the § 922(a)(6) charge, stating that the false statement was immaterial.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied Quiroz's motion to dismiss the indictment. After the jury's guilty verdict, the district court reconsidered its decision in light of the Bruen ruling and dismissed the indictment, declaring § 922(n) unconstitutional and the false statement under § 922(a)(6) immaterial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that § 922(n) is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. The court noted that historically, individuals indicted for serious crimes were often detained pretrial, which effectively disarmed them. The court held that § 922(n) imposes a comparable burden on the right to armed self-defense as historical pretrial detention practices. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case, reinstating the charges under both § 922(n) and § 922(a)(6). View "United States v. Quiroz" on Justia Law

Stokley Austin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride and cocaine base, which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years at the time. He was sentenced accordingly. Later, the First Step Act reduced the mandatory minimum for his offense to 15 years but explicitly made this change non-retroactive.Austin filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) in January 2023, arguing that the non-retroactive change in the law was an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce his sentence. He reiterated this argument in a subsequent motion in May 2023. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied his motions in December 2023, concluding that Austin did not present an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction and did not consider the § 3553(a) factors. Austin then appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a non-retroactive change in the law is not an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(1). The court cited its precedent in United States v. Escajeda, which defined "extraordinary" and "compelling" reasons as those that are beyond common order and unique to the prisoner’s life. The court noted that a non-retroactive change in the law affects all prisoners sentenced under the old law equally and does not constitute an extraordinary or compelling reason. The court also addressed the Sentencing Guidelines, stating that the Sentencing Commission cannot override Congress's explicit decision to make the change non-retroactive. The court affirmed the district court’s order denying Austin’s motions. View "United States v. Austin" on Justia Law

In January 2021, San Antonio police officers responded to two calls reporting a gunshot at an apartment complex. Officer Bonenberger arrived at the scene, spoke with a resident who heard the gunshot, and inspected a bullet hole in her apartment wall. Officers then encountered Jonte Turner, who lived in the adjacent apartment, and conducted a protective sweep of his apartment, finding firearms and magazines in plain view. Turner was arrested, and a search warrant was obtained, leading to the seizure of firearms, magazines, and marijuana.Turner moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the initial sweep and subsequent search violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motions, finding exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and protective sweep. Turner then pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that exigent circumstances and probable cause justified the warrantless entry and protective sweep of Turner’s apartment. The court found that the officers reasonably believed a firearm had been discharged from Turner’s apartment, posing an immediate safety risk. The protective sweep was limited in scope and duration, lasting only 99 seconds and confined to areas where a person could be hiding.The court also upheld the validity of the search warrant, finding that the affidavit supporting the warrant was not based on deliberately or recklessly false information. The good-faith exception applied, and the warrant was supported by probable cause. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Turner’s motions to suppress. View "United States v. Turner" on Justia Law

Paul Curry, Jr. pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The presentence report (PSR) classified him as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), due to four prior Texas burglary convictions. Consequently, the district court sentenced him to 262 months of imprisonment, within the guidelines range of 210 to 262 months. Curry did not object to the PSR at the district court level.Curry appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing for the first time that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and that the district court erred in sentencing him as an armed career criminal. He contended that § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and violates the Second Amendment. Additionally, he argued that the district court should have submitted the question of whether his prior crimes occurred on separate occasions to a jury, and that it erred by relying solely on the PSR for the ACCA enhancement.The Fifth Circuit reviewed Curry's constitutional challenges for plain error, as they were not raised in the district court. The court found that Curry's arguments regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) were foreclosed by precedent. The court also held that Curry's facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment failed, as the statute was not unconstitutional in all its applications.Regarding the ACCA enhancement, the Fifth Circuit determined that the district court clearly erred by not submitting the separate-occasions inquiry to a jury, as required by the Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v. United States. However, the court concluded that Curry failed to demonstrate that this error affected his substantial rights, given the substantial gaps in time and different victims involved in his prior convictions. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Curry" on Justia Law

Eddie Lamont Bell pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after being found in possession of a firearm. Bell was discovered by police asleep in his vehicle with a semiautomatic pistol on the center console, a large-capacity magazine, and cocaine. He admitted to being a convicted felon. Before sentencing, Bell was involved in an altercation with a fellow inmate, Hipolito Brito, which was captured on video. The video showed Brito initiating physical violence after Bell asked him to stop snoring. Bell was not disciplined or criminally charged for the incident.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Bell a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, citing the altercation as evidence of continued criminal conduct. The court also applied an elevated offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 due to the firearm's capability to accept a large-capacity magazine. Bell was sentenced to 115 months' imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Bell appealed, arguing that the district court erred in both denying the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and applying the elevated offense level. He also challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), but conceded that this argument was foreclosed in the circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with Bell that his pre-sentencing conduct did not outweigh the significant evidence of his acceptance of responsibility, as Bell did not initiate the altercation and appeared to act in self-defense. Consequently, the court vacated Bell's sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court did not address Bell's challenge to the elevated offense level under § 2K2.1, noting that the standards in United States v. Luna-Gonzalez would apply on remand. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

Christian N. Davis, a former Army corporal, was convicted by a general court-martial in 1993 of multiple offenses, including attempted premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit murder, premeditated murder, arson, and adultery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. After his conviction, Davis sought clemency and parole but was denied. He was later transferred to a federal civilian prison, where his parole was again denied.Davis filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, citing his age, health conditions, low risk of recidivism, and rehabilitative efforts. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction, as § 3582 requires such motions to be filed in the sentencing court, and Davis's sentence was imposed by a military court. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's findings, dismissed Davis's motion for compassionate release for lack of jurisdiction, and denied his habeas claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3582 does not apply to sentences imposed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and that such motions must be filed in the sentencing court. Since Davis's sentence was imposed by a general court-martial, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion for compassionate release. The court also rejected Davis's arguments based on 10 U.S.C. § 858(a) and the case Bates v. Wilkinson, concluding that neither authorized civilian courts to modify military sentences. View "Davis v. USA" on Justia Law

Rasheed Ali Muhammad was convicted and subsequently appealed his conviction. His appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. Muhammad then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition, which the district court denied as untimely. Later, the Fifth Circuit recalled the mandate in Muhammad’s direct appeal, reasserted jurisdiction, and affirmed the conviction after full briefing and oral argument. The Supreme Court denied certiorari and a rehearing. Muhammad then filed another § 2255 habeas petition.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi concluded that Muhammad’s new habeas petition was a “second or successive” petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and transferred it to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit clerk denied authorization to file the petition due to procedural non-compliance. Muhammad appealed the district court’s order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the habeas petition was “second or successive” under AEDPA. The court held that because Muhammad’s initial § 2255 petition was not adjudicated on the merits and the mandate in his direct appeal was recalled, the subsequent habeas petition was not “second or successive.” The court emphasized that the procedural history reset the count of Muhammad’s habeas petitions to zero. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "USA v. Muhammad" on Justia Law

Terry Pitchford was convicted of capital murder in 2006 by a Mississippi jury for his role in an armed robbery during which the store owner was killed by Pitchford’s accomplice. During jury selection, the prosecution used peremptory strikes to remove four black potential jurors. Pitchford’s counsel objected under Batson v. Kentucky, arguing racial discrimination. The trial court required the State to provide race-neutral reasons for the strikes, which it did, and the court accepted these reasons without further objection from Pitchford’s counsel.Pitchford appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, arguing that the State’s reasons were pretextual. The court ruled that Pitchford waived his Batson claims by not challenging the State’s race-neutral reasons during voir dire or in post-trial motions. Consequently, the court found no Batson violation and upheld the conviction and death sentence.Pitchford then filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, which granted the writ. The district court found that the state trial court failed to conduct the third step of the Batson inquiry and that Pitchford’s counsel had sufficiently objected to the State’s reasons. The court also suggested that the Mississippi Supreme Court should have considered the history of Batson violations by the prosecutor in the Flowers litigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the trial court did not omit Batson’s third step and that the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Batson. The appellate court also found that Pitchford waived his pretext argument by not raising it during voir dire and that the Mississippi courts were not required to consider the Flowers litigation. The Fifth Circuit rendered judgment dismissing Pitchford’s habeas corpus petition. View "Pitchford v. Cain" on Justia Law

Mark Uhlenbrock was convicted by a jury for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) by posting nude images and videos of his ex-girlfriend, YT, on Reddit, along with explicit stories written in her name. Some of the images were taken with her consent during their relationship, while others were recorded without her knowledge. Uhlenbrock's posts included personal details about YT, such as her occupation and employer, and invited men to proposition her. YT discovered the posts through a family friend and reported Uhlenbrock to the FBI.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Uhlenbrock's motion to dismiss the indictment on First Amendment and vagueness grounds. During the trial, the court allowed testimony about Uhlenbrock's prior similar conduct, which included a 2016 guilty plea for cyberstalking YT. The jury found Uhlenbrock guilty, and the district court sentenced him to 60 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and restitution. The court also revoked his supervised release from the 2016 case and sentenced him to an additional 12 months in prison. Uhlenbrock appealed both the new conviction and the revocation of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that Uhlenbrock's posts constituted unprotected defamation and that the application of § 2261A(2)(B) did not violate the First Amendment. The court also found that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Uhlenbrock's prior conduct. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Uhlenbrock intended to harass or intimidate YT and that his conduct caused her substantial emotional distress. The court also rejected Uhlenbrock's claims of constructive amendment of the indictment and double jeopardy. View "USA v. Uhlenbrock" on Justia Law