Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count 1); possession with intent to distribute cocaine (Count 2); and distribution of methamphetamine (Count 3). The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court misapplied USSG 4A1.1(e) and held that his criminal history score was correctly calculated; defendant's above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable where the district court based its decision on a number of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including not only defendant's criminal history, but also the nature and circumstances of the offense and the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct and to protect the public; and, under the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court held that the district court did not err in making its decision about drug quantity for purposes of determining the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. The court also held that, because the district court's statements show that the sentence was not based on the guidelines range and that the district court would have imposed the same sentence without the alleged error for the same reasons, any error in imposing the two-level enhancement for abuse of position of trust is harmless. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. View "United States v. Leontaritis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Because defendant's arguments for plea withdrawal—particularly his argument that his plea was not given knowingly and voluntarily—derive from his claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the court chose to address the merits of the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his plea.The court considered the Carr factors and the totality of the circumstances, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Given defendant's consistent, repeated statements in court affirming that he understood the required elements of his charge up until the time of his plea withdrawal motion, the court found that the district court did not err in determining that the record did not support defendant's assertion that he was unaware of the "knowingly possessed" element of his offense. Furthermore, the record supports the conclusion that counsel was available to defendant throughout the proceedings; defendant's original plea was knowing and voluntary; defendant delayed in filing his motion to withdraw; and the government would suffer prejudice if the withdrawal motion were granted. View "United States v. Strother" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 37 month sentence imposed following the revocation of his second term of supervised release. The court held that defendant's sentence did not violate the terms of his plea agreement where the plea agreement did not include any agreement regarding the prison term that could be imposed upon revocation of a second term of supervised release.The court also held that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court properly considered the sentencing factors of deterrence and protection of the public, and the sentence was imposed to punish defendant's breach of trust for violating his conditions of supervised release, which was separate and distinct from the sentence imposed for his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court further held that defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable where the district court's statement of reasons, although brief, was legally sufficient. Finally, the court rejected defendant's challenges to the timing of his revocation hearing. View "United States v. Napper" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and 600 month sentence for sex trafficking a 14 year old girl across state lines. The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence collected from his cell phone where the motion was devoid of facts that would justify relief and he did not have a concomitant right to a lawyered suppression hearing. The court also held that defendant's procedural and substantive challenges to his sentence are meritless. In this case, the rule of lenity does not apply; there was no error in denying a reduction to defendant's offense level for acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1(a); there was no error, much less an abuse of discretion, in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea; and the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(c) factors and did not abuse its discretion by sentencing defendant to 600 months in prison. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to marijuana trafficking offenses. Defendant received two concurrent, within Guidelines sentences of 27 months. The court held that the district court did not reversibly err in denying a sentencing adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1(a). Even without considering defendant's pretrial release violations, the court concluded that his driving while intoxicated supports the district court's decision. The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Hinojosa-Almance" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring with intent to distribute cocaine. The court held that defendant was aware of his sentencing exposure and would have pleaded guilty regardless of any error in the district court's admonishment; the forfeiture order must stand in spite of the district court's procedural shortcomings; and the district court did not clearly err in imposing a leadership-role adjustment under USSG 3B1.1(b) and in denying defendant an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1(a). However, the court remanded for the district court to determine whether the condition of supervised release imposed in his judgment is consistent with the court's oral pronouncement at sentencing. View "United States v. Omigie" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated special conditions of supervised release that prevented defendant from using the Internet, computers, and other electronic devices for the ten years following his initial sentence of 151 months. The special conditions were imposed after defendant pleaded guilty to child pornography charges.Considering the presentencing report's explanation and the fact that defendant used computers and the Internet in the commission of his offenses, the court can infer the district court's rationale for imposing special conditions restricting his computer and Internet use. Therefore, the district court did not procedurally err. However, the court held that the district court erred in imposing absolute ten-year bans on computer and Internet use, because the conditions fail to ensure no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. Because the error was plain and affected defendant's substantial rights, the court exercised its discretion to correct the error. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempted enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; the district court did not err by declining to give defendant's jury instruction on the definition of enticement because the instruction was not a substantively correct statement of circuit law; defendant's 240 month sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court did not err by failing to adequately consider a sentencing departure under USSG 4A1.3 for underrepresentation of his criminal history before imposing an upward variance; and the district court's factual recitations in the presentencing report contain indicia of reliability and defendant failed to present rebuttal evidence. View "United States v. Peterson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim alleging that the seizure of his vehicle violated his clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the officer investigating a hit-and-run incident came across one of the cars involved and seized it without obtaining a warrant. The court held that the warrantless seizure was constitutional, because there was probable cause to believe that the vehicle was an instrument or evidence of crime. Therefore, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. View "Rountree v. Lopinto" on Justia Law