Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's below-Guidelines sentence of 280 months in prison imposed after she pleaded guilty to drug trafficking. The court rejected defendant's argument that the district court coerced her into withdrawing objections to her presentence report by threatening to deny an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction where the district court treated withdrawal separately from acceptance and the district court did not pressure defendant into abandoning her objections by conveying before the hearing its tentative conclusion that her objections were without merit. Therefore, the court found no error, much less the clear or obvious mistake necessary to overcome plain error review. View "United States v. Angeles" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 180 month sentence for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err by applying the reckless engagement sentencing enhancement pursuant to USSG 3C1.2.However, the court held that the district court clearly erred in refusing to grant a safety valve reduction. In this case, the district court misapprehended the legal standard by being under the impression that it lacked discretion to apply the reduction if the government was not satisfied that defendant met the requirements for safety valve relief. Rather, the question of whether defendant had satisfied 18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(5) is one for the district court. Even if the district court had applied the proper legal standard, the court held that the district court erred in its determination that defendant did not provide truthful information based on a case agent's mere speculation. View "United States v. Lima-Rivero" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Defendant, a former police officer, used his position and the police department's resources to orchestrate a murder.The Fifth Circuit denied defendant a certificate of appealability (COA) on his claim that he was deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel at his 1996 guilt-phase trial. The court held that no reasonable jurist could debate that defendant suffered no prejudice. The court also denied defendant a COA on his claim that his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was compromised by the adverse impact of external influences and misconduct during his 1996 guilt-phase trial. In this case, defendant failed to point to any external influences in this COA briefing. Finally, the court denied defendant a COA on his claims that the government withheld key evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), because the Brady claims had no evidentiary basis and were merely defendant's conclusions and speculations. Because the court cannot issue a COA, the court has no power to say anything about defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant and his wife were convicted of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The district court granted defendant a new trial because the record does not show that he knew that the bags he removed from his house—and the bag his wife requested that he bring her—contained methamphetamine or any other controlled substance.The Fifth Circuit affirmed and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on the basis of insufficient evidence of knowledge. In this case, the evidence does not show that defendant ever laid eyes on the drugs themselves; the district court was not required to credit the wife's testimony in granting the motion for new trial; and the evidence only shows that defendant complied with his wife's request to bring her the bag containing the drugs but nothing more. View "United States v. Crittenden" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to suppress evidence of credit card skimming found in a Toyota and a Volkswagen stopped at a driver's safety checkpoint. The court held that the troopers had the minimum level of objective justification to support a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity -- namely, human trafficking -- sufficient to justify prolonging the stop by inquiring further about where the Toyota occupants were going. During the justified extension, the court explained that more facts were discovered to support reasonable suspicion and, eventually, a search of the vehicles. View "United States v. Burgos-Coronado" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner claimed that he was improperly denied release to home confinement under the First Step Act's Elderly Offender Home Detention Program.The court liberally construed the petition as asserting a Bivens civil rights claim and held that Congress has vested the executive branch, not the judicial branch, with the power to decide which prisoners may participate in the Program. In this case, petitioner argued in the district court that defendant wrongly declined petitioner's request for participation in the Program based on a prior disciplinary proceeding for which he was sanctioned for "attempted escape." The court explained that petitioner's claim would have required the district court to assess his prior actions and make a determination as to whether those actions constituted an escape attempt. However, only defendant had authority to make that determination for purposes of petitioner's eligibility for the Program. The court stated that 34 U.S.C. 60541(g) does not give federal courts the power to do so. The court held that petitioner did not raise a due process argument involving his prior disciplinary proceedings in the district court and may not raise them for the first time on appeal. View "Melot v. Bergami" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's 235 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the district court procedurally erred by offering an inadequate explanation for its sentencing determination, which was an abuse of its discretion. The court need not address defendant's argument regarding substantive reasonableness. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Bostic" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged two special conditions of his supervised release following the revocation of his first term of supervised release: first, a condition prohibiting possession of pornographic matter; and second, a condition prohibiting use of gaming consoles.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the pornography condition, holding that the condition is neither vague nor overbroad. In this case, defendant's interest in child pornography is intertwined with adult pornography. The court modified the gaming console condition, narrowing the condition to forbid defendant from using or possessing any gaming console or device that allows for internet access without prior permission from the probation officer. View "United States v. Abbate" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of child pornography found on his phone. In this case, DHS suspected defendant of participating in his mother's alien-smuggling conspiracy and convinced defendant to voluntarily consent to the search of his iPhone. Rather than discovering evidence to support the conspiracy, federal agents instead discovered evidence of the unrelated crime of possession of child pornography. The district court suppressed three incriminating videos that the government discovered and ruled that defendant's written consent to a "complete search" of the iPhone could not support a review of extracted data three days after the phone was returned.The court held, however, that defendant signed a consent form that, in its broad terms, encompasses the search and seizure conducted. Furthermore, defendant failed affirmatively to limit the scope of his broad consent. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's suppression of the evidence and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Gallegos-Espinal" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion was a successive habeas petition. The court held that when a court order disposes of a habeas claim on procedural and, in the alternative, substantive grounds, a Rule 60(b) motion contesting this order inherently presents a successive habeas petition. In this case, petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion—facially challenging a procedural ruling and implicitly challenging a merits determination—presents a habeas claim. Therefore, the district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.The court also affirmed the denial of petitioner's inherent-prejudice claim where petitioner identifies no clearly established law that the CCA misapplied, nor any unreasonable factual determinations on which that court based its holding. View "Will v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law