Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's denial without prejudice of defendant's motion for compassionate release. The court joined other circuits in its subsequent opinion, United States v. Shkambi, No. 20-40543, 2021 WL 1291609 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2021), holding that district courts are not bound by the policy statement in USSG 1B1.13 when considering motions brought by prisoners like defendant under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A).The court explained that Shkambi forecloses the government's contention that section 1B1.13 applies to defendant's motion for compassionate release. In this case, the district court declined to consider whether it had discretion to deviate from the "extraordinary and compelling reasons" articulated in section 1B1.13, including whether it could consider the First Step Act's nonretroactive reduced penalties for 18 U.S.C. 924(c) convictions. Thus, as clarified in Shkambi, the district court effectively considered that policy statement binding. The court also rejected the government's contention that the district court relied solely on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to reassess defendant's motion for compassionate release. View "United States v. Cooper" on Justia Law

Onyeri recruited others to assist in stealing credit card numbers and gift cards, engaged a bank employee to open a bank account using stolen identities, used stolen identities to fabricate tax returns, and bribed mailmen to intercept tax-refund checks. The conspirators' debit card fraud resulted in ATM withdrawals of $20,000 and $40,000 at a time. Onyeri and Akwar were charged in Texas in 2012. Onyeri was then out on bond for other (violent) crimes, and had previously been incarcerated for three years. Judge Kocurek was assigned to Onyeri’s case. Onyeri pled guilty. Judge Kocurek placed him on three-year deferred adjudication probation. The government later moved to proceed with adjudication, alleging that Onyeri had engaged in the fraudulent use of debit cards in Louisiana. Judge Kocurek suggested Onyeri could face several years in prison. Onyeri went to Kocurek’s home and shot Kocurek. Seriously injured, she survived. Onyeri bragged about the shooting. Officers eventually located and apprehended Onyeri.Onyeri was convicted under RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d): mail fraud, bribery of a public official, wire fraud, identity theft, access device fraud, money laundering, witness tampering, and attempted murder. Following his conviction, Onyeri’s father, a former teacher, died. Onyeri was to receive benefits from the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRST). The district court ordered TRST to pay Onyeri’s benefits toward his restitution obligation. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the court erred by admitting evidence obtained from the traffic stop because it was not supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion; that there was insufficient evidence to support a RICO conspiracy conviction; and that the annuity payments were exempt from garnishment. View "United States v. Onyeri" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate on death row in Texas, filed a federal habeas application under 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective in numerous ways at trial and sentencing. Petitioner's convictions stemmed from his murder of his wife, son, and step-daughter. The Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on four of petitioner's issues.As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that petitioner's notice of appeal was timely and thus the court has jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, concluding that the state court's decision was not contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. In this case, the court concluded that petitioner is not entitled to relief on the basis that the state court improperly resolved the claim that any partial jurors were seated; on the basis of the claim involving the jurors who expressed opposition to interracial marriage; and on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge petitioner's competency to stand trial, in rebutting the voluntary-intoxication theory, and in presenting a mitigation defense. View "Thomas v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, convicted of capital murder in 1998, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas postconviction DNA testing statute and seeking to compel the Texas officials to release the items he wishes to test.After determining that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim, concluding that plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitations. In this case, plaintiff knew or should have known of his alleged injury in November 2014, five years before he brought his section 1983 claim, and thus his claim is time-barred. View "Reed v. Goertz" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement for possession of a firearm "in connection with another felony offense" pursuant to USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err by delegating supervision of the "modality, duration, intensity, etc." of drug treatment to the probation officer. View "United States v. Huerta" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of possession of child pornography. The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's Count Two conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2), and modified the district court's judgment to impose only a $200 special assessment and a $10,000 assessment under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. The court affirmed in all other respects. In this case, the court could not say that the district court's decision to exclude the relevant expert testimony was manifestly erroneous; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence the images and video clips of child pornography; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the two pornographic narratives. Finally, the court rejected claims of instructional error. View "United States v. Naidoo" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of wire fraud for purporting to broker cattle deals worth millions of dollars, pocketing the money, and then disappearing the herd, the district court ordered more than $2 million in restitution. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the restitution award, rejecting defendant's contention that the Government failed to prove which cattle he sold and which he stole. Rather, the court concluded that the Government easily met its burden of proving an actual loss of $2,066,525 where it led the district court through each and every line item in its restitution request. Furthermore, the district court went through the data itself, considered the testimony and evidence, and found that each line item individually constituted an actual loss by a preponderance of the evidence. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Fifth Circuit addressed the application of the two-level reckless endangerment enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3C1.2 to a certain category of offenses known as "groupable" offenses. Defendant objected to the enhancement on the ground that his reckless flight was related only to the second drug trafficking count, and therefore not related to the offense of conviction.The court concluded that, when it comes to certain groupable offenses such as the drug trafficking offense at issue in this case, the court applies the reckless endangerment enhancement even when the defendant is not convicted for the specific crime from which he recklessly flees—so long as the crime for which he is convicted is part of the "same . . . common scheme or plan." The court affirmed the district court's application of the two-level enhancement because the facts of this case demonstrably satisfy the "same common scheme or plan" standard. View "United States v. Deckert" on Justia Law

The U.S. Sentencing Commission's compassionate-release policy statement does not bind district courts in considering prisoners' motions under the First Step Act.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment concluding otherwise. The court concluded that the district court's jurisdictional concerns were misplaced and that the district court plainly had jurisdiction over defendant's 18 U.S.C. 3582 motion. In this case, the district court concluded that an exception to the rule of finality did not apply (on the merits), and then the district court purported to dismiss the motion (rather than deny it). The court also concluded that neither the policy statement nor the commentary to it binds a district court addressing a prisoner's own motion under section 3582. The court stated that the district court on remand is bound only by section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and, as always, the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Shkambi" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court in light of Davis v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1060, 1061 (2020), which requires that unpreserved claims of factual error be reviewed under the full plain error test, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed defendant's sentence because he failed to show that the district court committed a clear or obvious error.The court concluded that, because the district court's implicit finding that the two state offenses were not relevant to the federal offense is plausible in light of the record as a whole, defendant's arguments related to his prior state convictions must fail. Furthermore, the district court's implicit finding that the pending state charges were not relevant to the federal offense is also plausible in light of the record as a whole, and defendant's argument that the district court erred in declining to concurrently run his sentence with the anticipated state sentences fails as well. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err by failing to explain its decision to deny defendant's request to run his federal sentence concurrently with the uncharged state sentence. Even assuming the district court's failure to state the reasons for running the sentence consecutively was an error that was clear or obvious, defendant has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. The court further concluded that any additional explanation of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, or the imposition of the maximum 262-month sentence of the guidelines range, would not have changed his sentence. View "United States v. Horton" on Justia Law