Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a conditional plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana.The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances support a finding that the law enforcement agent had reasonable suspicion to justify stopping defendant's vehicle. In this case, the agent noticed irregularities with the vehicle where the seal on the trailer was likely incompatible with a scan that seemingly showed a small amount of personal equipment inside, and Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System images of the trailer were consistent with images of bundles of narcotics. The court also concluded that defendant was not subject to custodial interrogation and thus he was not entitled to Miranda warnings. Finally, defendant concedes that his argument, that Border Patrol agents lack authority to conduct investigative stops solely related to non-immigration offenses, is foreclosed under Fifth Circuit precedent. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.The court affirmed Defendants Fackrell and Cramer's convictions and death sentences for killing a fellow prison inmate. The court found no error in the district court's denial of defendants' motions to sever; there was no error, much less plain error, in the finding of the requisite mental states under 18 U.S.C. 3591(a)(2); claims of prosecutorial misconduct rejected; any error in the Government's statements that referred to mitigating evidence was harmless; any error stemming from the Government's statements regarding justice for the victim did not affect Fackrell's substantial rights; the Government's use of rebuttal testimony of BOP psychologists did not violate Fackrell's right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and the psychotherapist-patient privilege; the use of mental health rebuttal witnesses did not violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2 and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; the district court did not err in denying evidence from the victim's family's civil suit as irrelevant and likely to confuse the jury; the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence related to another murder; and there was no error in the Government's mention of Cramer's charge for the 2012 assault.The court rejected Fackrell's challenge to the district court's decision to reject the categorical approach. The court explained that, even assuming that the categorical approach applies and thus the 18 U.S.C. 3592(c)(2) and (c)(4) aggravators were invalid, the sentence can be affirmed if it would have been imposed without the invalid aggravators. Finally, the court rejected Fackrell's Hobbs Act claim; rejected challenges to the district court's penalty-phase jury instructions on mitigating evidence; concluded that the district court did not impermissibly marshal the evidence; upheld the district court's supplemental jury instruction to the sentencing jury; rejected defendants' challenge to the sufficiency of the record on appeal; and rejected claims of cumulative errors. View "United States v. Fackrell" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendants Fackrell and Cramer's convictions and death sentences for killing a fellow prison inmate. The court found no error in the district court's denial of defendants' motions to sever; there was no error, much less plain error, in the finding of the requisite mental states under 18 U.S.C. 3591(a)(2); claims of prosecutorial misconduct rejected; any error in the Government's statements that referred to mitigating evidence was harmless; any error stemming from the Government's statements regarding justice for the victim did not affect Fackrell's substantial rights; the Government's use of rebuttal testimony of BOP psychologists did not violate Fackrell's right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and the psychotherapist-patient privilege; the use of mental health rebuttal witnesses did not violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2 and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; the district court did not err in denying evidence from the victim's family's civil suit as irrelevant and likely to confuse the jury; the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence related to another murder; and there was no error in the Government's mention of Cramer's charge for the 2012 assault.The court rejected Fackrell's challenge to the district court's decision to reject the categorical approach. The court explained that, even assuming that the categorical approach applies and thus the 18 U.S.C. 3592(c)(2) and (c)(4) aggravators were invalid, the sentence can be affirmed if it would have been imposed without the invalid aggravators. Finally, the court rejected Fackrell's Hobbs Act claim; rejected challenges to the district court's penalty-phase jury instructions on mitigating evidence; concluded that the district court did not impermissibly marshal the evidence; upheld the district court's supplemental jury instruction to the sentencing jury; rejected defendants' challenge to the sufficiency of the record on appeal; and rejected claims of cumulative errors. View "United States v. Fackrell" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for engaging in a monetary transaction in property derived from a specified unlawful activity. Although defendant entered a plea agreement, when it came time to plead guilty, he requested two continuances based on his fears about traveling to the courthouse during the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court declined and ordered defendant to obtain housing in the Northern District of Texas. Although the district court had previously allowed defendant to reside in Alabama, the court concluded that defendant's reluctance to appear calls into question his ability to comply with the district court's conditions.The Fifth Circuit concluded that defendant's claim regarding the in-person rearraignment is not an immediately appealable collateral order, and thus dismissed that portion of the appeal and did not address its merits. However, the court addressed the merits of the claim questioning the housing requirement and concluded that it did not violate defendant's Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive bail. The court explained that, where a defendant expresses his reluctance to appear at such an in-person hearing, a district court can reasonably amend release conditions to ensure his appearance. The court also concluded that the district court's housing requirement did not violate procedural due process. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments against the housing requirement and affirmed the housing condition. View "United States v. Emakoji" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted in a second superseding indictment on eight charges of false use of a passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1543, and eight charges of misuse of a passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1544. The Government now agrees that the convictions under section 1544 must be vacated based on insufficient evidence.The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for false use of a passport and held that there was ample evidence, both direct and circumstantial, to conclude that defendant used fraudulent passports to open accounts at various banks in the Houston area. Because the court has determined that there is insufficient evidence to support defendant's section 1544 convictions for misuse of a passport, the court need not address defendant's argument that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment as to those charges. Finally, the court also held that defendant failed to show that the district court plainly erred in allowing certain lay opinion testimony and failed to demonstrate that the district court clearly erred in its loss calculation. Accordingly, the court vacated the section 1544 convictions and affirmed the section 1543 convictions. View "United States v. Masha" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a "no alcohol" special condition after defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens and one count of transporting an illegal alien. The court concluded that where, as here, the defendant has a history of substance abuse and drug-related arrests such that the court reasonably believes he is an "abuser" of drugs, it is within the district court's discretion to require substance abuse treatment and prohibit the use of intoxicating substances, including alcohol, as special conditions of supervised release—even when there is no evidence in the record of alcohol abuse specifically. View "United States v. Vigil" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to health care fraud after operating a chiropractic clinic that fraudulently billed insurance companies for services he performed without a license. Defendant was sentenced to 41 months' imprisonment and ordered to pay the defrauded insurance companies $514,576.29 under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA). The Act generally allows the government to garnish any of the defendant's property to satisfy a restitution order. The district court issued writs of garnishment for accounts defendant maintains with brokerage firms and life insurance companies.Applying de novo review, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the Sixth Circuit that the child-support exemption only applies to money akin to salary and wages—meaning amounts received directly for labor such as "bonuses, tips, commissions, and fees." Because this does not describe defendant's retirement accounts, the court affirmed the judgment garnishing those accounts. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendants Johnson and Goings' convictions and sentences for the armed robbery of two banks and one credit union and related firearms offenses. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Johnson's convictions for brandishing a firearm during the armed robbery of the credit union and his two convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm; the evidence was sufficient to support Goings' convictions for armed robbery of the credit union and for brandishing a firearm during that robbery; the district court's response to a jury note did not violate Goings' right to due process where there is no reasonable likelihood that the district court's response influenced the jury; and the district court did not plainly err by applying a six-level sentencing enhancement to Johnson's sentence under USSG 3A1.2(c)(1) for assaulting a law enforcement officer in a manner creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury during the offense or while fleeing. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). In this case, the district court instructed the jury that the Government had to prove: (1) defendant knowingly possessed a firearm; (2) he had been convicted previously of a felony; (3) at the time of possession, he knew he had a prior felony conviction; and (4) the firearm possessed traveled in interstate commerce.The court concluded that the jury instructions complied with the rule set forth in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2194 (2019). The court explained that the district court clearly instructed jurors as to the relevant principles of law and thus did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendant's request for a jury instruction. View "United States v. Trevino" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to acquire a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer by false or fictitious statement. Defendant and her husband served as illegal straw-purchasers in a weapons-trafficking arrangement.The court concluded that the district court did not plainly err when it instructed defendant as to the elements of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6). The court rejected defendant's contention that the reasoning in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019) -- which held that, in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and 924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm -- extends to section 922(a)(6). Plaintiff argued that, to convict for conspiracy to violate section 922(a)(6), the government must prove not only that she knowingly made a false statement but also that she made such statement to a seller she knew to be a licensed dealer. However, the court explained that Rehaif does not compel such a conclusion and that Rehaif expressly limited its application in relation to other portions within subsection (g). The court concluded that, even if Rehaif compels the inclusion of the scienter requirement for which defendant advocates for prosecutions under sections 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2), that is not the crime of which she pleaded guilty. Furthermore, section 371 does not contain the "knowingly" requirement included in section 924(a)(2). Even after Rehaif, and even for prosecutions under sections 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2), the court has continued to adhere to its long-held view of what the government must prove under section 922(a)(6). The court also rejected defendant's claim for selective or vindictive prosecution based on her appeal waiver. Finally, the court dismissed defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "United States v. Diaz" on Justia Law