Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit denied petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability (COA). Petitioner was sentenced to death for shooting and killing a police officer. The court held that petitioner's claims, that his sentence violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it was based on the jury's unreliable and inaccurate predictions about his future dangerousness, are procedurally defaulted and substantively meritless. Likewise, petitioner's claim that his sentence violates the Due Process Clause is also procedurally defaulted and substantively meritless. Finally, petitioner's claim that the Eighth Amendment prohibits his execution because of how much time he has spent on death row is unexhausted and unreviewable in federal habeas. View "Buntion v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a mandamus action in the district court, seeking an order to compel USCIS officials to travel to federal prison in order to administer the oath of citizenship to him. Plaintiff alleged that USCIS unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed the administration of his oath under section 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim for relief and denial of his subsequent motion for reconsideration. Contrary to defendant's contention, the district court did consider defendant's APA claim before dismissing it. The district court dismissed after determining that his section 706(1) claim could not proceed. The court explained that when plaintiff appears before USCIS officials, they must administer the oath to him. But the manner in which USCIS administers the oath, including where within the United States that administration occurs, is left to the agency's discretion. In this case, plaintiff cannot show a clear right to relief and thus he is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. View "Mendoza-Tarango v. Flores" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and vacated the district court's order, directing the district court to reinstate its original judgment. In this case, defendant moved for release under section 2255, based on the Supreme Court's holding in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 597 (2015), that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act's (ACCA) violent felony definition violated due process. The court explained that case law has crystalized in this area and held that defendant's prior robbery convictions designated him an armed career criminal at the time of his sentencing. View "United States v. Lipscomb" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendants William Joseph Dubin and David Fox Dubin's convictions and sentences for charges arising from a scheme to defraud Texas’ Medicaid program. William, a licensed psychologist, formed a corporation that was an enrolled Medicaid provider. David, William's son, worked for the corporation.The court held that David waived his challenge to the Government's amended indictment by failing to raise his defense until a post-trial motion for ineffective assistance of counsel; the evidence was sufficient to support David's conviction for conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, aggravated identity theft, and aiding and abetting; and the evidence was sufficient to support William's conviction for conspiracy to pay and receive healthcare kickbacks, offering to pay, and paying, illegal remunerations. The court also upheld the legality of the restitution award and forfeiture orders. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err by failing to adjust William's sentence downward based on a lower restitution amount. View "United States v. Dubin" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's consecutive 24-month sentences for violating the terms of his supervised release. Defendant argued that the district court clearly gave significant weight to an improper factor—the need to promote respect for the law—because the district court "cited only this one reason when explaining its decision to impose two consecutive sentences" fifteen months above the high end of the guideline range.The court concluded that the district court's reliance on defendant's absconding in pronouncing sentence was not itself plain error. The court explained that the district court's passing reference to defendant's lack of respect for the law does not make it plain that the district court impermissibly used defendant's history of absconding. Furthermore, the court concluded that the district court's failure to consider defendant's first alleged self-surrender does not warrant reversal. Nor does the upward variance from the guidelines call into doubt the reasonableness of the sentence. View "United States v. Cano" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. When defendant pleaded guilty to the crime, he reserved the right to challenge on appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the discovery of the firearm by an officer patting him down prior to questioning.The court concluded that the evidence before the district court did not support the conclusion that officers had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to detain defendant for questioning or to subsequently frisk him. In this case, defendant was detained for questioning while standing on a sidewalk with others near a business that in recent days had been the location of multiple gang-related shootings. The court stated that the body-camera videos and police report do not sufficiently explain the events leading up to the initiation of the investigatory detention. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order denying defendant's motion to suppress and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. McKinney" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed appellant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with a scheme involving the use of phone calls, emails, and wire transfers to defraud the victim of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The court held that appellant has not shown any clear or obvious error in Count One of the indictment and, even if he had done so, he has not met his burden of demonstrating that the alleged error affected his substantial rights. The court also held that appellant has not shown any clear or obvious error under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Finally, the court declined to consider appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim without prejudice to his right to seek collateral review. View "Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excusing two case agents from sequestration under Federal Rule of Evidence 615 and, in any event, defendant failed to show prejudice. Furthermore, the district court did not err by admitting jailhouse telephone calls.The court also held that the district court did not err at sentencing in determining the quantity of methamphetamine attributable to defendant for the purpose of calculating his base offense level under USSG 2D1.1(c); the district court did not clearly err by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(5); and the district court did not clearly err by sentencing defendant as a career offender under USSG 4B1.1. View "United States v. Arayatanon" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for sentence reduction filed pursuant to section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider the lower, noncareer offender sentencing range that would apply if defendant were sentenced in 2019, rather than in 2010, in deciding whether to grant his First Step Act motion for sentence reduction. Furthermore, the court was not persuaded that any legal error occurred here in the district court's assessment of defendant's motion. In this case, the court was not convinced that the district court based its determination on an erroneous interpretation of the First Step Act or United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414, 418 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 285 (2019). View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for sentence reduction filed pursuant to section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. The court held that the district court did not misinterpret United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414, 418 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 285 (2019), as precluding consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors during First Step Act sentencings and preventing any downward departure or variance from the guidelines range.However, the court held that it is not clear where the district court considered and implicitly rejected defendant's request for a reduction of his term of supervised release, or merely overlooked it. Therefore, the court remanded the issue to the district court for consideration and disposition. The court rejected defendant's argument that the district court's re-imposition of a 262-month sentence resulted in a substantively unreasonable sentence. Rather, the court held that the substantive reasonableness standard does not apply here and that defendant has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion or legal error occurred. Finally, defendant's argument that the district court failed to consider the guidelines range applicable to him if he were sentenced today is foreclosed by Hegwood. View "United States v. Batiste" on Justia Law