Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than fifty kilograms of marijuana. The court held that defendant's sentence is based on his initial guideline range because that range played a relevant part in the framework the sentencing judge used in imposing his sentence. The court also held that the guideline range applicable to defendant is his initial guideline range of 292 to 365 months. The court explained that Amendment 780 lowered the guideline range applicable to defendant from 292 to 365 months to 262 to 327 months. Therefore, the court remanded for the district court to determine whether a reduction of defendant's sentence is warranted. View "United States v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Movant seeks authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion challenging his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A) for using and possessing a destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence. Movant argues that his conviction should be vacated because the predicate offense for his conviction, arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. 844(i), qualified as a "crime of violence" only under the residual clause in section 924(c)(3)(B), which pursuant to United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2325–26, 2336 (2019), is unconstitutionally vague. The Fifth Circuit concluded that movant has made a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the district court, and ordered that the motion be granted. View "In Re: Travis Harris" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed defendant's convictions for conspiracy to commit health care fraud (Count 1); conspiracy to pay or receive illegal health care kickbacks (Count 2); and aiding and abetting health care fraud (Count 27). Defendant was tried and convicted alongside five codefendants for his involvement in a large home health care fraud and kickback scheme in connection with his employment at Abide Home Health Care Services.The court concluded that, even under the court's extremely deferential review of jury verdicts, there was insufficient evidence put forth at trial for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted with the knowledge that his conduct was unlawful. Therefore, the Government failed to prove that defendant acted "willfully" with respect to each count. In this case, there was insufficient evidence proving that defendant knew that Abide was defrauding Medicare, through "ghosting," its use of house doctors, or otherwise (Count 1); that defendant knew that Abide's referral payments constituted illegal kickbacks (Count 2); or that defendant had involvement with EvLa's treatment at Abide (let alone that he knew she was not actually homebound) (Count 27). The court vacated defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Nora" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of mail fraud and making false statements to a bank. In this case, defendant, as justice of the peace, exploited his position to steal thousands of dollars in public funds, which he used for casino gambling. The court rejected defendant's challenge to the district court's decision to seat a juror who, defendant claims, was biased against gamblers. Rather, the court deferred to the district court's broad discretion in assessing the juror's impartiality. In this case, the juror's negative views about gambling implicate nothing like the kind of structural bias against all criminal defendants. Furthermore, the district court affirmatively found the juror's views on gambling (unlike other jurors who were dismissed for cause on that ground) would not prevent her from being impartial. View "United States v. DeJean" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal copyright infringement, the district court sentenced defendant to 46 months' imprisonment and ordered him to pay restitution to the copyright owner, Scientific Games Corporation.After determining that defendant's appeal waiver did not bar defendant's challenge, the Fifth Circuit vacated the restitution order, concluding that the government failed to carry its burden of properly establishing the number of infringing items placed into commerce that defendant was responsible for and the resulting harm to Scientific Games in terms of lost net profit. The court remanded for the district court to reanalyze the government's evidence and to determine the number of counterfeit Life of Luxury (LOL) motherboards actually sold and put into the market to compete with legitimate LOL games and the net profit lost by Scientific Games as a result. The court dismissed defendant's challenge to the imposition of a sentencing enhancement because it is barred by his appeal waiver. View "United States v. Kim" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of capital murder for beating to death her two-year-old daughter. Petitioner argues that the state trial court denied her constitutional right to present a complete defense by excluding two expert witnesses from testifying at the guilt phase of her trial. The now-vacated panel decision concluded that petitioner fairly presented a complete-defense claim to the state courts; the state courts simply overlooked it; and petitioner therefore got the benefit of de novo review of her complete-defense claim in federal court. The court concluded that this was error.The court concluded that the state courts adjudicated petitioner's claims on the merits and thus the relitigation bar in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) applies. Evaluating the relevant state court decisions under the relitigation bar, the court rejected petitioner's contention that she satisfied the relitigation exceptions. In this case, the court rejected petitioner's claim that the state court's decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986); the state court's decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973); and the state court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. The court noted that various dissenting opinions contradict AEDPA, Supreme Court precedent, and the record in this case. View "Lucio v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.The court vacated defendant's condition of supervised release requiring defendant to "participate in an inpatient or outpatient substance-abuse treatment program" supervised by defendant's probation officer. The court concluded that the option to require inpatient rehabilitation delegates to the probation officer the judicial decision to significantly restrict defendant's liberty during treatment. In this case, because of defendant's short ten-month sentence, the district court should not have delegated the decision to further restrict defendant's liberty during the course of treatment while on supervised release. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.The court affirmed defendant's 120-month sentence for harboring an illegal alien. The court held that defendant waived his duplicity argument by pleading guilty; even if the district court erroneously applied the reckless endangerment and bodily injury sentencing enhancements, the errors were harmless; defendant's contention that the district court impermissibly delegated judicial authority through the wording of two special conditions of supervised release, the required alcohol and drug treatment, fails under either plain error or de novo review; and defendant's sentence was within the Guidelines and he fails to demonstrate that an explanation of the revocation sentence would have changed his sentence. View "United States v. Medel-Guadalupe" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. After the district court rejected the petition and denied a certificate of appealability (COA), petitioner sought a COA under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) to appeal numerous issues.The Fifth Circuit granted a COA and received additional briefing on a single issue pertinent to his Batson challenges to the jury's makeup. The court affirmed the district court's refusal to consider newly discovered evidence relevant to petitioner's Batson claim, because Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011), bars its consideration. Furthermore, the court found no error in the district court's conclusions where petitioner failed to meet the standards embodied in section 2254(d); he has no basis to offer evidence outside the state record; and a certain spreadsheet was correctly barred from consideration in federal court. The court rejected petitioner's five other claims for relief and denied a COA on each of these claims. View "Broadnax v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's claims because they are barred by the statute of limitations. In this case, plaintiff filed suit against defendant, in his individual capacity, alleging that plaintiff's property had been illegally seized after plaintiff's arrest.The court concluded that plaintiff failed to file his equitable claim within six years, making his current lawsuit untimely. Even if plaintiff's Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion was timely, the court explained that that has no bearing on the outcome of this case. Because the court held that plaintiff's equitable claim is time-barred, the court need not address plaintiff's suspicions about whether the government still possesses his property or whether defendant's sworn affidavit is admissible evidence to prove that plaintiff's property had been destroyed. Because Bivens actions are limited by a two-year statute of limitations, plaintiff's Bivens action is also time-barred. Finally, the court concluded that exceptional circumstances do not exist in this case to warrant the appointment of counsel. View "Tampico v. Martinez" on Justia Law