Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the case involved Marty Johnson, the owner of a mental health rehabilitation clinic, and Keesha Dinkins, an employee of the same clinic. Both defendants fraudulently billed Medicaid for illegitimate services between 2014 and January 2018. On the day their jury trial was scheduled to begin, Johnson pled guilty to conspiracy to commit healthcare and wire fraud, and Dinkins pled guilty to misprision of a felony. Each of their plea agreements stipulated a loss of $3.5 million and recommended that the judge order $3.5 million in restitution to the government. The district court accepted the defendants' recommendations and ordered each to pay $3.5 million in restitution. After receiving the benefit of their plea bargain, both defendants argued that the $3.5 million order was erroneous. Dinkins also contended that under the sentencing guidelines, the entire loss should not have been attributed to her. The court held the defendants to the plea bargain they had made and affirmed the district court's decision. The Court of Appeals determined that the district court's restitution order was valid under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA). View "USA v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed an appeal by Evaristo Contreras Silva, a Mexican citizen who was convicted of possession of a firearm by an illegal alien under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). Silva entered the United States unlawfully and was detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2018. He was informed of his illegal status and given an I-94 form. Silva argued that he believed he was lawfully in the U.S. based on the I-94 form and his interactions with immigration officials. In February 2022, Silva was found in possession of a firearm after a domestic violence call from his wife. He was subsequently charged and convicted for firearm possession as an illegal alien.On appeal, Silva argued that the Government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew he was unlawfully in the U.S. when he possessed the firearm. He based his belief on the I-94 form, advice from his immigration attorneys, adherence to his bond conditions, and various applications to change his status after his arrest.However, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that the Government provided sufficient evidence that Silva knew he was in the U.S. unlawfully when he possessed a firearm according to the standard set in Rehaif v. United States. The court considered Silva's unlawful entry, his detention by DHS, his admission of unlawful entry in an application for status adjustment, and the pending status of his immigration applications at the time he possessed the firearm. The court concluded that although there was evidence supporting Silva's belief of lawful presence, it did not justify a judgment of acquittal as the evidence was not definitive and the issue was appropriately presented to the jury. View "United States v. Silva" on Justia Law

In 1999, Ruben Gutierrez was convicted of capital murder in a Texas state court and sentenced to death. Since 2011, Gutierrez’s efforts to secure post-conviction DNA testing have been denied in state and federal court. In this federal case, Gutierrez claimed that a certain limitation in Texas’s DNA testing statute was unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, however, ultimately concluded that Gutierrez did not have standing to make this claim. The court found that even if the DNA testing statute was declared unconstitutional, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had already held that Gutierrez would have no right to DNA testing. The court reasoned that any new evidence would not overcome the overwhelming evidence of Gutierrez's direct involvement in the multi-assailant murder. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for the complaint to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Gutierrez v. Saenz" on Justia Law

Shawn Malmquist appealed his conviction and sentence of 151 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Malmquist argued that the Government had breached a clause in his plea agreement, specifically, the Government's promise to recommend a three-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that the Government's breach of the plea agreement did indeed constitute a plain error, as it affected Malmquist's substantial rights and called into question the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Considering these findings, the Court of Appeals vacated Malmquist's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "USA v. Malmquist" on Justia Law

In 2009, defendants Corey Deyon Duffey, Jarvis Dupree Ross, and Tony R. Hewitt were convicted on numerous counts of conspiracy, attempted bank robbery, and bank robbery, as well as using a firearm in furtherance thereof, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Following several appeals, resentencings, and unsuccessful motions to vacate their sentences, the defendants appealed once again, this time arguing that § 403 of the First Step Act should apply to their resentencing. This Act eliminates sentence stacking, so each defendant would be subject to only the five-year mandatory minimum sentence set by § 924(c) rather than the 25-year mandatory minimums for every additional § 924(c) conviction that they were serving.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that § 403 of the First Step Act does not apply to the defendants' resentencing. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the phrase "a sentence" in § 403(b) of the Act, which the court concluded refers to any sentence that has been imposed for the offense, even one that was subsequently vacated. Therefore, because sentences for the defendants' offenses had been imposed upon them prior to the First Step’s Act’s December 21, 2018 enactment date, § 403(a) of the First Step Act does not apply to their resentencing.Additionally, the court ruled that the district court properly applied a two-level sentencing enhancement for physical restraint of a victim during a robbery to defendant Duffey's sentence, as the court's findings showed that in each robbery, the bank managers were held at gunpoint and moved to the vault.Finally, the court affirmed the district court's decision that it did not have jurisdiction to vacate defendant Hewitt's remaining § 924(c) convictions, as these convictions fell outside of the authorization for Hewitt’s motion to vacate his sentence.As a result, the court affirmed the district court's decisions on all issues. View "United States v. Duffey" on Justia Law

Eric Salvador Pena, a convicted felon, sold a firearm to a confidential informant working for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”). He was subsequently arrested for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and pleaded guilty. At sentencing, the district court applied an enhanced offense level as the firearm sold was capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine, offering a guideline range of 51 to 63 months of incarceration. Pena objected, arguing that the firearm could not function with a fully loaded magazine and therefore did not meet the definition of being "capable of accepting a large capacity magazine".The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed with Pena's argument. It held that the firearm in question met the definition because it could accept and function with a magazine containing more than 15 rounds of ammunition, even though it had jammed during a test when fully loaded. The court also determined that the district court had not erred procedurally or substantively in sentencing. It affirmed the district court’s decision to impose a 63-month sentence of incarceration and 3 years of supervised release. View "USA v. Pena" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court's denial of Lucas James Tighe's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. After being convicted and sentenced for possession of stolen firearms, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and conspiracy to possess stolen firearms, Tighe alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed that his trial attorney, Sharon Diaz, did not consult with him about filing an appeal. The Court of Appeals, applying the Strickland test, found that Diaz failed to adequately consult with Tighe about the potential appeal, which was considered professionally unreasonable. Furthermore, the court found that Tighe demonstrated a reasonable interest in appealing, given the unexpected severity of his sentence and his request to Diaz to ask the court to run his federal sentence concurrently with his forthcoming state sentence. The court also determined that Tighe had shown there was a reasonable probability that he would have timely appealed, but for Diaz's deficient performance. As a result, the court found that Tighe had successfully made an ineffective assistance of counsel claim which entitled him to an appeal. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to grant an out-of-time appeal and reenter Tighe's criminal judgment. View "United States v. Tighe" on Justia Law

In 1998, Chuong Duong Tong was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Texas for killing a police officer during a robbery. After exhausting his appeals in state court, Tong filed a federal habeas corpus petition. He argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence of childhood sexual abuse. He also challenged the trial court's management of the jury selection process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that Tong's claims were without merit. The court determined that Tong's claim of ineffective assistance was procedurally defaulted, meaning it was not properly raised in state court and therefore could not be considered in federal court. The court also rejected Tong's argument that the district court should have granted a stay to allow him to return to state court to exhaust this claim. Additionally, the court found that Tong's challenge to the jury selection process was procedurally defaulted and that he had not shown cause to excuse this default.In reaching these conclusions, the court noted that Tong's trial counsel had conducted a thorough investigation, including interviewing Tong and his family members, and had retained experts to assist with the case. The court also considered the fact that Tong had used his peremptory challenges during jury selection and had not identified any biased juror who was seated as a result of the change in procedure.Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Tong's request for a stay, denied his motion for an additional certificate of appealability on his ineffective assistance claim, and affirmed the denial of his writ of habeas corpus on his jury selection claim. View "Tong v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the case concerned the appeal of Taylor Chiasson against an above-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court. Chiasson was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He pled guilty to this offense. His Presentence Report (PSR) listed his extensive criminal history, including 14 prior adult convictions and 19 arrests from 2008 to 2020 that were either dismissed or had no recorded disposition. At the sentencing hearing, the district court varied upward by 25 months, sentencing Chiasson to 96 months imprisonment. The justification was that the guidelines did not capture the extent of Chiasson’s past criminal history. Chiasson appealed, arguing that the court erred by considering testimony by two non-victim witnesses and by relying on “bare arrests” in Chiasson’s record.The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision. First, it ruled that the district court did not violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 by allowing two non-victim witnesses to testify on behalf of the government at sentencing. The court found that Rule 32 does not restrict a district court’s authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3661 to permit testimony relevant to sentencing. Secondly, it held that Chiasson failed to show that the district court relied on any "bare arrest" records in imposing the sentence. The court found that the district court had ample factual support in the PSR for each prior arrest or conviction it referenced when imposing an upward variance. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not err by considering Chiasson's arrest history as it was not dealing with a 'bare arrest record.' View "United States v. Chiasson" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered an appeal by Jose Guadalupe Diaz-Diaz and Martin Perez-Marrufo, two members of the Barrio Azteca gang, who were convicted for their involvement in the murders of three people in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico in 2011. The defendants separately appealed their convictions and sentences, specifically questioning whether sufficient evidence existed to support their convictions for conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country under 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1). Diaz also challenged his aiding-and-abetting convictions and his three consecutive life sentences for his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j). Perez-Marrufo also challenged an obstruction of justice enhancement imposed at sentencing.The court held that sufficient evidence existed to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country. The court also affirmed the obstruction of justice sentencing enhancement in Perez-Marrufo's case and the sufficiency of the evidence to support Diaz's convictions for aiding and abetting in Salcido's murder. However, the court held that the district court erred in imposing mandatory consecutive life sentences for Diaz's three section 924(j) convictions and remanded the case for resentencing on these counts. View "USA v. Diaz Diaz" on Justia Law