Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry following removal. Defendant argued that the district court violated 18 U.S.C. 3582(a) and Tapia v. United States by imposing or lengthening a prison sentence to enable an offender to complete a treatment program or otherwise promote rehabilitation. The court held that the district court did not err, let alone plainly err, when it abbreviated the sentence based on defendant's history and characteristics. In this case, the court acknowledged that the prison term might be too short for mental health and drug abuse treatment. Therefore, defendant's need for rehabilitation could not have been a dominant factor informing the sentencing decision. Nor did the district court’s subsequent Statement of Reasons offend Tapia. View "United States v. Escobar" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSCLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq., charges against the contractor defendants for failure to state an offense. The court assumed arguendo that section 1350(c) may expose contractors and subcontractors to criminal liability and held that the regulations did not apply to nor do they potentially criminalize defendants' conduct. The court also held that regulations that were specifically directed at lessees and permittees did not extend penalties to contractors and individuals; because the applicable regulatory definitions unambiguously exclude contractors, more general liability provisions did not control; and no prior judicial decision countenanced this action, which was at odds with a half century of agency policy. View "United States v. Moss" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and the substantive crime. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen because defendant failed to provide the district court with a reasonable explanation for not exercising the opportunity to testify before closing his case. The court also held that any error in the district court's calculation of the amount of methamphetamine (actual) would not have been clear or obvious, particularly in light of the 2015 Sentencing Guidelines' example calculation. Furthermore, the district court did not clearly or obviously err by reading the percentage notations in the lab report as purity levels. Finally, even if the district court erred by giving an inadequate explanation, that error would not be reversible on plain error review. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit previously remanded this case to the district court to determine whether the Government suppressed certain favorable evidence and whether any of the suppressed evidence was material (Cessa II). The district court then concluded that none of the suppressed evidence was material. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in making its materiality determination and thus reversal was not required. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Colorado Cessa" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendant Kiekow, Uriarte, and Pierre's convictions for conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute cocaine. The court affirmed the denial of Pierre's motion for a new trial; affirmed Uriarte's sentence; but vacated Kiekow's sentence. The court held that the district court plainly erred by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance under USSG 2D1.1(b)(12) (2012), because this enhancement did not exist during the period of the conspiracy, which ended around 2009. Rather than having an exposure of 97-121 as a level 30 offender, Kiekow faced a minimum exposure of 121 months and maximum exposure of 151 months as a level 32 offender. Because the plain error affected Kiekow's substantial rights by imposing a significant risk of a higher sentence, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Kiekow" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence of multiple health care fraud and kickback offenses perpetrated through her medical equipment company. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the deliberate indifference jury instruction; the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an expert's testimony regarding Medicare and the practices of medical equipment providers. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in applying an enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(a) because she was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity involving five or more participants. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied defendant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his appeal as frivolous. Defendant asked the district court to reduce his sentence further according to Amendment 794 and challenged the district court's certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. The court held that because Amendment 794 was not listed in USSG 1B1.10(d), the district court correctly determined that this amendment did not make defendant eligible for any sentencing reduction. View "United States v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that plaintiff was subjected to unconstitutional strip searches while incarcerated at the Winn Correctional Center (WCC). In this case, the policies at issue were aimed at preventing the flow of contraband from the outside truck drivers and others to inmates in the Garment Factory and to the main prison, as well as to prevent the removal of items from the Garment Factory that could be used as weapons. The court held that plaintiff failed to rebut this reasonable justification of the strip and visual body searches and thus the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendants. The court also held that the LaDPSC and CCA internal rules and regulations did not alone create federally-protected rights and a prison official's failure to follow prison policies or regulations did not establish a violation of a constitutional right; rejected plaintiff's various challenges to discovery; and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint against three named defendants based on failure to serve them properly. View "Lewis v. Secretary of Public Safety & Corrections" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States. The court held that the district court erred by applying a sixteen-level enhancement to defendant's base offense level under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), for defendant's prior conviction under Texas Penal Code 22.05(b). The district court reached its sentencing decision before the decision in Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), which provided helpful guidance for determining whether a predicate statute of conviction was divisible. In this case, because the government failed to prove Section 22.05(b) was divisible, Section 22.05(b) may not be used here as the basis for a crime-of-violence enhancement. View "United States v. Perlaza-Ortiz" on Justia Law

Appellant challenged the district court's denial of his motions to unseal the probable cause affidavits supporting three pre-indictment search warrants. The court vacated the district court's judgment, holding that the district court failed to specify its factual findings with requisite detail in the context of the required balancing test. Without more detailed findings from the district court regarding the reasons for keeping the warrant materials sealed, the court could not properly assess those materials and the impact of unsealing them. Accordingly, the court remanded for a case-by-case analysis and a sufficiently detailed factual assessment. View "United States v. Sealed Search Warrant" on Justia Law