Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2019, defendant moved for resentencing under section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA), which provided for retroactive application of sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FAIR), which in turn reduced the statutory penalties for crack cocaine offenses. Based on United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414, 415 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 285 (2019), the district court calculated defendant's post-FSA sentence using the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of his original conviction.The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and held that the district court erred by constraining itself to the 2001 Sentencing Guidelines when calculating defendant's post-FSA sentencing range, thereby denying him the benefit of Amendment 750's change to the marijuana equivalency calculation for crack cocaine—a change compelled by FAIR. Because the only Guidelines change necessary for the relief defendant seeks is Amendment 750, which in relevant part was mandated by FAIR, the court need not and did not decide whether a district court faced with a resentencing motion invoking section 404(b) of the FSA must apply all retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, the court remanded for reconsideration. View "United States v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Texas, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that various employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice violated federal law when they deducted a $100 medical co-payment from his inmate trust account. Plaintiff, who receives regular payments from the VA, claimed that this deduction violated 38 U.S.C. 5301(a) and 31 C.F.R. 212.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in regard to plaintiff's claims arising from the TDCJ defendants' purported violations of section 5301(a). In this case, plaintiff's VA benefits were commingled with transfers from his Altra account and with sizeable deposits by a private individual. Therefore, it is impossible to know whether the medical co-payment was charged against funds that originated from the Department of the Treasury and plaintiff cannot state a claim under Section 5301(a), which protects only payments of federal benefits. The court also affirmed the trial court's assessment of filing fees, and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on the due process claims. View "Hawes v. Stephens" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The court held that defendant's three prior Texas burglary convictions under Texas Penal Code 30.02 are generic and thus qualified defendant for an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Defendant's arguments to the contrary are foreclosed by United States v. Herrold (Herrold II), 941 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc). View "United States v. Wallace" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendants Burden and Scott's convictions and sentences for unlawfully possessing firearms as felons. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Scott's motion for severance where Scott failed to overcome the presumption that the jury would follow the district court's limiting instruction; defendants cannot meet their burden to show that Rehaif error affected their substantial rights; regardless of the standard of review, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; the district court did not err, much less plainly so, in ordering the attorneys to seek approval before mentioning or eliciting testimony concerning defendants' statements that they had just been robbed of their clothing; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a cross-reference to attempted first degree murder at sentencing. View "United States v. Burden" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc, withdrew the prior opinion, and substituted the following opinion.The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after she pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop because the officer knew that the location where defendant was pulled over is a known drug-trafficking corridor; defendant drove a truck registered in someone else's name; defendant was unusually protective of the truck and initially refused to exit; defendant offered inconsistent and implausible stories about the purpose of her travel; defendant had a conviction for possession of meth; and when asked about anything illegal in the truck, defendant's facial expressions changed dramatically. The court also held that defendant offered no persuasive reason why Miranda demands the suppression of her statements during a routine traffic stop. View "United States v. Reyes" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained through a search warrant. In this case, federal agents used an outside service to analyze the publicly viewable Bitcoin blockchain and identify a cluster of Bitcoin addresses controlled by a child pornography website that defendant used to download material.The court held that defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in his information on the Bitcoin Blockchain where the nature of the information on the Bitcoin blockchain and the voluntariness of the exposure weigh heavily against finding a privacy interest in an individual's information on the Bitcoin blockchain. The court also held that defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in his Bitcoin transactions on Coinbase where the nature of the information and the voluntariness of the exposure weigh heavily against finding a privacy interest in Coinbase records. View "United States v. Gratkowski" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 165 month sentence for possession with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine.The court held that the district court did not err in applying USSG 2D1.1(a)(5),(c)(3) of the Drug Quantity Table to calculate defendant's sentencing guideline range based on the purity of the methamphetamine he had in his possession. According to the factual basis and PSR, the methamphetamine seized was identified as d-methamphetamine hydrochloride with a net weight of 989 grams and a purity level of 97%. Therefore, the court concluded that it was appropriately classified as "ice" methamphetamine. The court also held that defendant failed to show that the district court clearly or obviously erred by failing to adjust his sentence to account for time he spent in custody prior to sentencing that he claims will not be credited. Even if the district court erred, defendant failed to show that the district court's purported error affected his substantial rights. View "United States v. Aparicio-Leon" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of armed robbery with a firearm. Petitioner alleged that his trial lawyer rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to testimony that supposedly violated the Confrontation Clause. Assuming, without deciding, that counsel's performance was deficient, the court held that counsel's ineffective assistance did not prejudice defendant in light of the ample evidence linking defendant to the offense. Therefore, the state court's application of Strickland v. Washington was not contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. View "Coleman v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

On appeal, Defendants Staggers and Session argued that they should be resentenced because their convictions for their involvement in a drug conspiracy were not final when the First Step Act became effective. The Fifth Circuit held that the relevant provisions of the First Step Act do not apply to defendants who were sentenced before the Act's effective date. The court also held that Defendants Staggers and Morrison are not entitled to a new trial on their 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) convictions for possessing firearms as convicted felons. The court further held that Morrison's argument regarding his motion to suppress is the only single-defendant issue having any merit. Because a credibility determination was necessary, the court vacated the district court's decision to deny Morrison's motion to suppress and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Staggers" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's decision finding petitioner removable under Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and denying petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).The Fifth Circuit held that petitioner failed to show a realistic probability that his conviction for possession of cocaine under the Texas statute criminalizes a broader range of conduct than the federal generic definition for cocaine. The court also held that petitioner failed to demonstrate error in the BIA's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review of the final order of removal and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the petition for review of his eligibility for relief and protection. View "Alexis v. Barr" on Justia Law