Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Richard Plezia, a Houston-based personal injury attorney, was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, making false statements, and falsifying records in a federal investigation. The charges stemmed from allegations that Plezia conspired with other attorneys and case runners to unlawfully reduce the federal income taxes owed by Jeffrey Stern. The scheme involved funneling illegal payments through Plezia to case runner Marcus Esquivel, which were then falsely reported as attorney referral fees.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a fifteen-day jury trial, where Plezia was convicted on all counts. Plezia challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for one count, and the admission of certain witness testimonies. The district court denied his motions for acquittal and a new trial, and sentenced him to six months and one day in prison, followed by two years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with Plezia that the statute of limitations for the false statements charge was not subject to equitable tolling and vacated his conviction on that count, remanding with instructions to dismiss it with prejudice. However, the court affirmed the remaining convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the conspiracy and falsification charges. The court also held that any error in admitting witness testimonies was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. View "United States v. Plezia" on Justia Law

Sha Kendrick Smith was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) for enticing a minor to engage in prostitution. The minor victim (MV) was a thirteen-year-old runaway who was a ward of the state. Smith provided MV with a cell phone and took her to various locations where she engaged in commercial sex with multiple men, with Smith keeping the money. MV initially told Smith she was eighteen, but he later learned she was underage. MV described Smith as always carrying a gun and being feared by those who knew him. Smith was eventually arrested after MV reported her situation to the police.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas sentenced Smith to 235 months of imprisonment and ten years of supervised release. The court applied two sentencing enhancements: one under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) for undue influence over the minor and another under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1) for MV’s status as a vulnerable victim. Smith objected to these enhancements, but the district court overruled his objections, adopting the presentence investigation report (PSR) and the government’s arguments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s application of both sentencing enhancements. It found that the district court’s determination that Smith unduly influenced MV was plausible given the evidence of Smith’s control over MV, including his age, size, possession of a gun, and the fear he instilled in others. The court also upheld the vulnerable-victim enhancement, noting that MV’s age, status as a ward of the state, and economic desperation made her unusually vulnerable, and Smith knew or should have known of her vulnerabilities. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court did not commit clear error in its findings and affirmed Smith’s sentence. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Jose Pedro Garcia was convicted of possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of a mixture containing fentanyl. He pled guilty to the charge. While awaiting sentencing, Garcia assaulted another detainee. This incident led the probation officer to determine that Garcia was not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, a determination the Government adopted. The district court agreed and denied any reduction for acceptance of responsibility.Garcia appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the Government breached the plea agreement by not recommending a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Garcia did not raise this issue in the district court, so the appellate court reviewed for plain error. Garcia contended that the plea agreement required the Government to move for a three-level reduction under § 3E1.1. However, the plea agreement only obligated the Government to move for the third point of reduction under § 3E1.1(b) if the district court awarded the initial two-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a). The agreement did not restrict the Government's arguments regarding the initial two-level reduction.The Fifth Circuit found that the Government's argument against the reduction was consistent with a reasonable understanding of the plea agreement and did not constitute a breach. Since Garcia did not demonstrate that the Government breached the plea agreement and did not argue that the appeal waiver in his plea agreement was invalid, the court dismissed the appeal. The court did not consider Garcia’s remaining arguments challenging the denial of the reduction under § 3E1.1. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Izik Romero pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. During a police pursuit, Romero threw a firearm from his vehicle, which was later recovered by officers. A large-capacity magazine was found nearby. At his initial sentencing, the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended a base offense level of 20 due to the presence of the large-capacity magazine, resulting in a sentencing range of 92 to 115 months. Romero did not object to the PSR, and the district court sentenced him to 115 months of imprisonment.Romero appealed the application of the increased base offense level. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the government failed to prove that the firearm was capable of accepting the magazine, as required by the Sentencing Guidelines. The court vacated Romero’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. At the resentencing hearing, the government presented new evidence, including testimony from an ATF special agent, to establish the connection between the firearm and the magazine. The district court overruled Romero’s objection to the new evidence and reimposed the same sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found no error in the district court’s actions. The court held that the district court was permitted to consider new evidence at resentencing because the remand order did not limit what could be considered. The court also found that the evidence supported the application of the increased base offense level, as the firearm and the large-capacity magazine were in close proximity and compatible. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to reimpose the 115-month sentence. View "United States v. Romero" on Justia Law

Three individuals, Jamarr Smith, Thomas Iroko Ayodele, and Gilbert McThunel, were convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. The convictions were based on evidence obtained through a geofence warrant, which collected location data from Google to identify suspects. The robbery involved the theft of $60,706 from a U.S. Postal Service route driver, Sylvester Cobbs, who was attacked with pepper spray and a handgun. Video footage and witness testimony linked the suspects to the crime scene, but no arrests were made immediately. Investigators later used a geofence warrant to gather location data from Google, which led to the identification of the suspects.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi denied the defendants' motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the geofence warrant. The defendants argued that the warrant violated their Fourth Amendment rights due to lack of probable cause and particularity, and that the government did not follow proper legal procedures in obtaining additional information from Google. The district court found that law enforcement acted in good faith and denied the motion to suppress. The defendants were subsequently convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 121 to 136 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that geofence warrants, as used in this case, are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because they resemble general warrants, which are prohibited. However, the court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion to suppress, citing the good-faith exception. The court concluded that law enforcement acted reasonably given the novelty of the geofence warrant and the lack of clear legal precedent. Therefore, the convictions were upheld. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Esteban Luna Caudillo pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography, violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(B) and (b)(1). As part of his plea agreement, he agreed to pay full restitution to the victims, with the court determining the amount. The government provided a factual basis for the plea, detailing that Luna Caudillo received child pornography via an online cloud storage account linked to his email. A search of his cell phone revealed numerous files of child pornography. The presentence investigation report (PSR) calculated a guidelines range of 210 to 262 months of imprisonment and recommended restitution awards to eleven victims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas considered Luna Caudillo’s objections to the PSR, including challenges to the restitution calculations. The court adjusted the guidelines range to 121 to 151 months based on an amended offense level and criminal history category. Luna Caudillo reiterated his objections to the restitution recommendations, arguing that the estimates for future medical costs were not verifiable and that the Paroline factors required a determination of proximate cause for each victim’s losses. The district court sentenced him to 135 months of imprisonment, ten years of supervised release, and ordered restitution totaling $73,000 to the eleven victims, including a $3,000 mandatory minimum to one victim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Luna Caudillo argued that the restitution awards violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The court found this argument foreclosed by circuit precedent, which holds that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to restitution awards. He also contended that the mandatory minimum restitution award violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Alleyne v. United States. The court noted that this argument was not foreclosed by precedent but found it moot due to Luna Caudillo’s explicit waiver of any Sixth Amendment challenge in his plea agreement. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Caudillo" on Justia Law

In May 2020, following the death of George Floyd, several individuals participated in or were near protests in downtown Houston. They allege that they were falsely arrested by City of Houston police officers who used "kettle maneuvers" to confine and arrest protesters. The plaintiffs claim that then-Chief of Police Art Acevedo implemented a policy of "kettling" and arresting protesters. They sued the City and Acevedo under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, based on the assertion that there was no probable cause for their arrests under section 42.03 of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibits obstructing passageways.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs under section 42.03 and dismissed the claims against both the City and Acevedo. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that two previous panels had addressed similar issues with conflicting outcomes. In Utley v. City of Houston, the panel found probable cause for arrest and affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s § 1983 lawsuit. Conversely, in Herrera v. Acevedo, the panel found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged false arrest and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The current panel agreed with the Utley decision, holding that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs for obstructing a passageway under section 42.03. The court found that the size and location of the protests provided sufficient probable cause for the arrests, thus negating any First, Fourth, or Fourteenth Amendment violations. Consequently, the claims against the City and Acevedo were dismissed due to the lack of an underlying constitutional violation. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Wade v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Arthur Lee Burton was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in June 1998 for kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and strangling a woman in Houston, Texas. His conviction was affirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, but his sentence was vacated and remanded for a new trial on punishment. Upon retrial, he was again sentenced to death, and this sentence was affirmed. Burton pursued state and federal habeas relief, which were all denied.Burton recently filed three challenges to his scheduled execution in Texas state court, including motions to withdraw his execution order and a habeas petition alleging constitutional violations. These challenges were rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Subsequently, Burton sought authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to file a successive federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and moved to stay his execution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied both motions. The court held that Burton's petition was untimely, as it was filed well beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed by § 2244(d). Burton's reliance on Atkins v. Virginia and Moore v. Texas was insufficient to excuse the delay, as both cases were decided long before his current motion. The court also rejected Burton's arguments for equitable tolling and actual innocence, finding that he had not pursued his rights diligently and that his claims were not supported by extraordinary circumstances. Consequently, the court concluded that Burton failed to meet the requirements of § 2244 and denied his motion to stay execution. View "In re Burton" on Justia Law

On December 22, 2022, Jesus Soto Parra, an American citizen, attempted to enter the United States at the Presidio, Texas port of entry. After being turned back by Mexican officials due to a vehicle registration issue, Soto Parra returned to the U.S. and initially denied having any weapons, ammunition, or cash over $10,000 to a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer. Upon further inspection, he admitted to having a weapon in his vehicle. A search revealed a firearm, ammunition, and body armor. Soto Parra was charged with exporting a pistol without authorization and was found guilty by a jury.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas sentenced Soto Parra, applying a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice based on his false statements to the CBP officer and during his post-arrest interview. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended a base offense level of 14, which was increased to 16 due to the obstruction enhancement, resulting in a sentencing range of 24 to 30 months. Soto Parra objected to the enhancement, but the district court overruled his objections and sentenced him to 30 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in applying the obstruction of justice enhancement. The appellate court determined that Soto Parra's false statements did not significantly impede the investigation or prosecution, as required for the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The court held that the error was plain and affected Soto Parra's substantial rights, as it resulted in a higher sentencing range. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated Soto Parra's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing without the obstruction of justice enhancement. View "USA v. Parra" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of four counts of fraud for submitting two fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan applications during the COVID-19 pandemic. She misrepresented the number of employees and payroll expenses for her businesses, requesting nearly $4 million in total. One application was denied, and the funds from the other were frozen and seized before she could access them. Throughout the prosecution, the defendant had conflicts with multiple appointed attorneys, leading to several motions to substitute counsel, all of which were denied by the district court. The trial proceeded with the defendant absent on the first day after she refused to change out of her jail clothes and participate, but she was present for the remainder of the trial.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied the defendant's motions to substitute counsel, finding no substantial conflict or complete breakdown in communication that warranted new counsel. The court also determined that the defendant had voluntarily waived her right to be present at the trial by refusing to cooperate and change into street clothes. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, and the court sentenced her to 70 months of imprisonment and ordered her to pay over $2 million in restitution to the Small Business Administration (SBA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions to substitute counsel, as the defendant's intransigence caused the communication breakdown. The court also found that the district court properly concluded the defendant voluntarily waived her right to be present at trial. Additionally, the appellate court upheld the district court's sentencing enhancement based on intended loss and the restitution order, finding no clear error in these determinations. View "United States v. Kasali" on Justia Law