Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 120-month sentence for failing to register as a sex offender, holding that defendant's sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. In regard to defendant's claims of procedural error, the court held that the district court did not err in considering a contested account contained in the PSR that was drawn from a police report, because this evidence bears sufficient indicia of reliability. Furthermore, the district court did not reversibly err by considering the opinion of a TDCJ psychologist that defendant's likelihood of reoffending was high. The court gave deference to the district court's application of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable in light of his history of sexual violence and considerations for public safety. View "United States v. Parkerson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the summary dismissal of defendant's pro se 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, in which he challenged his sentence for revocation of supervised release that resulted in an 18-month prison sentence to run consecutively with his sentence for illegal reentry. Defendant claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his due process rights were violated.The court held that a district court does not err in declining to offer sua sponte a section 2255 movant an opportunity to amend. In this case, defendant never moved for leave to amend, and United States v. Martinez, 181 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 1999), does not establish a requirement to offer sua sponte a movant the opportunity to amend. Furthermore, defendant failed to state how he would cure his section 2255 motion if given the chance to amend. View "United States v. Hernandez-Zavala" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the written amount of restitution imposed after defendant pleaded guilty to one count of financial aid fraud. Defendant asserts that, at sentencing, the district court orally pronounced restitution of $63,221, but the written judgment mandates $106,744. The court concluded that, although the oral pronouncement was ambiguous, it does not conflict with the written judgment. In this case, the district court stated several times that the "correct" or "net" amount owed in restitution was $106,744—the amount it imposed in its written judgment. The court acknowledged that the district court could have been clearer, but that the record confirms that the district court intended to order restitution in the amount of the written judgment. View "United States v. Tanner" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's request for compassionate release from prison on account of his underlying health issues and the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there were no extraordinary and compelling reasons to warrant compassionate release. The court acknowledged that defendant's chronic illnesses place him at a higher risk of severe symptoms should he contract COVID, but agreed with the district court that it is uncertain that defendant is at a significantly higher risk than is the general inmate population. In this case, defendant can point to no case in which a court, on account of the pandemic, has granted compassionate release to an otherwise healthy defendant with two, well-controlled, chronic medical conditions and who had completed less than half of his sentence. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for bribery-related offenses carried out in connection with his duties as a judge on the 93rd Judicial District in Hidalgo County, Texas. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for federal program bribery (Counts Two through Four) and conspiracy (Count One). The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for using a phone in connection with the charged federal program bribery offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1952(a)(3) (Counts Five through Seven). Finally, sufficient evidence supports defendant's conviction for obstruction of justice (Count 8).The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court incorrectly calculated "the benefit received" in return for the bribe payments under USSG 2C1.1(b)(2) and 2B1.1(b)(1), and affirmed the district court's application of a six-level sentencing increase to defendant's Guidelines offense level. View "United States v. Delgado" on Justia Law

The good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule does not allow officers to search the photographs on a defendant's cellphones for evidence of drug possession, when the affidavits supporting the search warrants were based only on evidence of personal drug possession and an officer's generalized allegations about the behavior of drug traffickers—not drug users.The Fifth Circuit held that the officers' affidavits do not provide probable cause to search the photographs stored on the defendant’s cellphones. Furthermore, the good faith exception does not apply because the officers' reliance on the defective warrants was objectively unreasonable. While respecting the "great deference" that the presiding judge is owed, the court further held that he did not have a substantial basis for his probable cause determination with regard to the photographs. Therefore, the digital images found in defendant's cellphones are inadmissible and the court vacated his conviction, remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. Morton" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a 460 month term of imprisonment based on defendant's conviction for first-degree murder under 18 U.S.C. 1111(b). While a person convicted of first-degree murder under section 1111(b) "shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life," a defendant who was under the age of eighteen at the time of the offense, such as defendant, cannot be sentenced to death or mandatory life imprisonment under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 479 (2012) (holding mandatory life without parole unconstitutional for juveniles), and Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 575 (2005) (holding the same for the death penalty.) In this case, the district court resolved the constitutional defect by severing section 1111(b)'s punishment provision for first-degree murder, determining that the statute-as-modified authorizes imprisonment "for any term of years or for life."The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court unconstitutionally fashioned a new punishment for first-degree murder committed by juveniles, violating the Due Process Clause's notice requirement and separation-of-powers doctrine. Rather, the court concluded that it is appropriate to sever as necessary, and that excising the mandatory minimum nature of the life sentence is all that is needed to satisfy the constitutional issue for juveniles under section 1111. In this case, the district court's remedy complies with Roper and Miller, functions independently, and is consistent with Congress's clear intent to criminalize "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." The court also rejected defendant's assertion that the district court violated the Due Process Clause and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 by failing to specify his potential sentencing range at his plea hearing. The court explained that defendant's plea hearing demonstrates that the district court properly notified him of the consequences of a guilty plea, and therefore defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary. View "United States v. Bonilla-Romero" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. The court affirmed the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises to distribute drugs because one of the primary uses for defendant's premises was the distribution of drugs. Therefore, the court rejected defendant's contention that he stored drugs in his garage on an infrequent basis and only for brief periods of time. In this case, defendant admitted to storing drugs in his garage on at least three occasions. Furthermore, the discovery of two scales in his storage sheds, along with the positive detection of narcotics by an odor-sniffing canine, indicates that defendant may not have strictly limited his drug storage activities to the garage, leaving open the possibility that his residence was used to store drugs on other occasions. View "United States v. Galicia" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted the government's emergency motion to stay the district court's order of release and expedited this appeal. In 2010, petitioner was indicted on capital charges stemming from a 2006 double homicide. In 2019, petitioner claimed that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated. The district court agreed, dismissed all charges with prejudice, and ordered petitioner released.Under the Supreme Court's balancing test in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the court concluded that petitioner's speedy trial right was not violated. The first factor, the over nine year length of delay, weighs heavily against the government; the second factor, the reason for the delay, weighs heavily against petitioner where he contributed substantially to the delay, requested a slew of continuances, and represented that he needed those continuances; the third factor, petitioner's diligence in asserting his right to a speedy trial, weighs heavily against petitioner; and the fourth factor, prejudice suffered by petitioner as a result of the delay, weighs against petitioner because petitioner failed to prove that he suffered actual prejudice. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for a prompt trial. The court rejected petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process claim. View "United States v. Duran-Gomez" on Justia Law

Defendant argued that the district court did not properly pronounce supervision conditions requiring him to participate in drug treatment and to pay at least $25 per month towards its costs. Defendant also argued that the payment condition is inconsistent with the district court's previous findings regarding his indigence and inability to pay a fine.The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that defendant failed to assert a lack of notice and failed to support his contention that the ambiguity in the record indicates that the district court failed to pronounce the conditions at issue. Furthermore, the court was not persuaded that the district court's findings related to defendant's current indigence are inconsistent with a future payment condition. Rather, defendant may be able to pay $25 per month once he leaves prison and finds employment. Regardless, even if it turns out that defendant cannot afford to pay $25 per month upon release, the court explained that the district court could not automatically revoke his supervised release. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring defendant to pay for his own drug treatment during his term of supervised release. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law