Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, the Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession with intent to distribute a mixture containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. The court held that there was no clear or obvious error under USSG 5G1.3(c) in the district court's order running the sentence consecutively to defendant's anticipated state-court sentences for possession of less than two ounces of marijuana and unlawful possession of a firearm—conduct that occurred about 10 months before the federal offenses. Furthermore, the district court did not clearly or obviously err by failing to give an additional explanation for why it ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the anticipated state sentences. Therefore, defendant failed to show plain error. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four counts of structuring financial transactions for the purpose of evading reporting requirements, a violation of 31 U.S.C. 5324(a)(3) and (d).The Fifth Circuit held that the Count 4 indictment fails to state an offense but, given the evidence introduced at trial, the defect is harmless. The court also held that the $52,042 forfeiture judgment is not excessive under the Eighth Amendment. In this case, defendant's offenses were intentional efforts to evade a reporting requirement, related to other criminal activity, conducted over a 27-month period, and the $52,042 forfeiture is a fraction of the statutory maximum and less than double the Guidelines maximum. View "United States v. Suarez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for failure to register as a sex offender in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Defendant argued that his New Jersey conviction for second degree sexual assault is a SORNA tier I offense, meaning that he was required to register for only 15 years after his release from custody in 1995 and had no obligation to register as a sex offender when he was charged with failing to do so in 2018.The court held that because the New Jersey Supreme Court has interpreted the state crime of sexual assault in the second degree to cover conduct outside of the federal definitions given in 18 U.S.C. 2241 and 2242, defendant does not qualify as a tier III offender. Because defendant does not meet the definition of a tier III offender, he must be classified as a tier I offender. As a tier I offender, the court explained that defendant was required to register for only 15 years after his release in 1995. View "United States v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens within the United States by means of an aircraft. The court held that the district court did not err by applying a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2L1.1(b)(6) for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. In this case, the aliens were transported on a small aircraft in excess of the seating capacity flown by defendant who had not held a valid pilot certificate for eleven years. Therefore, the totality of these specific facts and reasonable inferences supports the conclusion that the manner in which defendant transported these aliens involved inherently dangerous practices that produced substantial risks of death or serious bodily injury. View "United States v. Luyten" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, which established for the first time that the government must prove that the person charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm "knew he had the relevant status when he possessed" the firearm.The Fifth Circuit affirmed and held that the district court's error in accepting defendant's guilty plea did not affect his substantial rights. In this case, defendant's state court documents, and especially his behavior at the time of his arrest, established that defendant had knowledge of his status as a convicted felon when he possessed the firearm. Therefore, the court concluded that there is no reasonable probability that defendant would have refused to enter the plea absent the district court's error. View "United States v. Brandon" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences for charges related to their involvement in a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendants' convictions; venue in the Eastern District was proper; defendants have not offered any evidence to get past the presumption of jury impartiality; any error the district court committed by admitting the government's experts' testimony was harmless; and any error in giving the deliberate ignorance jury instruction was harmless.The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in calculating the drug quantity involved in the conspiracy; defendants' base offense level of 36 was appropriate under either Guidelines Manual; and the district court did not clearly err in finding that the firearm enhancement applied. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court rejected defendant's argument that the district court erred by accepting a constitutionally inadequate factual resume as foreclosed by precedent. The court also held that there was no error in the district court's application of a guideline enhancement for obstruction of justice based on its finding that defendant gave false testimony. View "United States v. Perryman" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery. The court held that the district court erred by imposing a four-level sentencing enhancement to defendant's base offense level for an abduction during the robbery under USSG 2B3.1(b)(4)(A), because a victim was not forced to accompany defendant to a different location. However, no remand is required because the error was harmless where the government has demonstrated that the district court would have imposed the same sentence had it not made the same error and that it would have done so for the same reasons it gave at the prior sentencing. Finally, the court held that defendant's 180-month sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court analyzed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Redmond" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine, he argued on appeal that he should have received a mitigating role adjustment pursuant to USSG 3B1.2. This court held that defendant could not demonstrate plain error because the issue was a question of fact that was capable of resolution by the district court upon proper objection. Thereafter, the Supreme Court concluded in Davis v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1060, 1061 (2020), that there is no legal basis for the Fifth Circuit's practice of declining to review certain unpreserved factual arguments for plain error. The Supreme Court then granted defendant's petition for certiorari.On remand from the Supreme Court, the court affirmed the district court's denial of a mitigating role adjustment and held that defendant failed to show error, plain or otherwise. In this case, defendant exercised decision-making authority by recruiting his brother and coordinating actions with another individual. Furthermore, the plan between defendant, his brother, and another individual suggested that defendant had some discretion regarding his role in the offense. View "United States v. Bazan" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendants' conviction for forced labor, conspiracy to harbor an alien for financial gain, and harboring an alien. The court held that defendants have failed to identify any authority holding that under current law—the standard they must meet on plain-error review—the forced-labor statute's definition of "serious harm" is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; the evidence was sufficient to support the forced-labor conviction; the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to give defendants' requested jury instruction; and the district court did not err by imposing a restitution award of $288,620.24. View "United States v. Toure" on Justia Law