Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal and dismissed his original appeal. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because defendant failed to demonstrate either excusable neglect or good cause for untimely filing his notice of appeal. In this case, the district court, immediately after imposing defendant's sentence, orally advised him of his right to appeal and of his right to counsel on appeal; expressed confidence that his present counsel would advise him of his appeal rights; and signed and gave to defendant a written notice of his appeal rights. View "United States v. Ramos Juarez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit 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 who pulled defendant over had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop for a canine sniff where the government offered several specific facts in support of reasonable suspicion. In this case, among other things, defendant was pulled over in a well known drug-trafficking corridor, she drove a truck registered in someone else's name, she took unusual measures to protect the truck, she offered inconsistent and implausible stories about the purpose of her travel, and she had a conviction for possession of meth. The court also held that defendant was not entitled to Miranda safeguards during the routine traffic stop. View "United States v. Reyes" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit held that sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions for two counts of carjacking where a reasonable jury could infer that defendant had the intent to kill if necessary at the moment that he took the vehicle. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. Furthermore, because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict defendant on both underlying carjacking counts, defendant's convictions under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) stand.The court also affirmed the district court's imposition of special conditions of supervised release, because the district court's oral adoption of the conditions in the presentencing report satisfied the district court's pronouncement obligations to the extent it was required to do so. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. The court held that the district court did not err by applying two-level enhancements to defendant's offense level under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice and USSG 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm during the commission of the offense. The court also held that the district court did not err by adding three criminal history points for defendant's prior drug offense, rejecting his claims under USSG 4A1.2(k)(1) and the rule of lenity. View "United States v. Guidry" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry after deportation. Both parties agree that the merit's of defendant's appeal are foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Quarles v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1872 (2019). At issue is whether defendant's release from custody mooted his challenge to the presentencing report's calculation of his sentencing guidelines.The court applied United States v. Lares-Meraz, 452 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2006), and held that defendant's appeal of the eight-level sentence enhancement under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) is not moot because he remains subject to a term of supervised release. View "United States v. Calzada Vega" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence stemming from a methamphetamine distribution and money laundering conspiracy. The court held that the district court plainly erred in limiting an inmate's testimony; the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the prosecutor to ask a few pointed questions about defendant's arrest for possessing marijuana in California when he had essentially testified that he believed his dealings in California were entirely legal; any error in allowing the testimony did not affect his substantial rights and was harmless; the district court did not plainly err by failing to immediately issue a limiting instruction about defendant's arrest during his cross-examination; the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a defendant to remain shackled during trial where nothing suggested the shackles were visible to the jury and particularized needs justified the shackling; defendant failed to show that the district court plainly erred in calculating his Guidelines range; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Maes" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for eleven federal tax offenses. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in a conspiracy to commit tax fraud by filing false tax returns. The court held even if there was error in admitting summary testimony and charts, the error was harmless; the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction of every count; and there are no cumulative errors requiring reversal. View "United States v. Nicholson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of government authorization to administer antipsychotic medication to defendant involuntarily for the sole purpose of restoring her competency for trial. The court held that all four Sell factors support the administration of the antipsychotic medication because the government's interest in bringing to trial an individual accused of a serious crime is important; involuntary medication will significantly further those interests; the involuntary medication is necessary to further those interests; and administration of the drugs is medically appropriate. In this case, the administration of Risperdal Consta is medically appropriate and defendant's case does not present any of the recognized risk factors for side effects linked to Risperdal Consta, which itself has fewer serious side effects than do earlier generation antipsychotics. View "United States v. James" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court held that, to the extent that defendant argues his indictment is fatally defective because it did not contain an element of the offense under section 922(g), he failed to preserve that claim by pleading guilty. The court also held that defendant cannot show how the Rehaif error affected his substantial rights. In the factual basis and the rearraignment, defendant admitted that he was a felon convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year.The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) for a stolen firearm; defendant's sentence is procedurally reasonable where, even if the upward departure was improper, the error is harmless because the heightened sentence was imposed as a variance as well; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court specifically considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion by imposing an 105-month sentence. View "United States v. Lavalais" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's revised sentence imposed after he was convicted of drug trafficking and firearms offenses. The court rejected defendant's reading of the First Step Act of 2018 and joined its sister circuits in holding that section 403 of the Act affords no relief to defendants whose cases were pending on direct appeal on the law's December 21, 2018 effective date. The court explained that the date that matters in the section 403 inquiry is when the district court imposed defendant's sentence—not when defendant exhausted his appeals.The court applied the new Diggles framework and held that all four of the conditions of supervised release are discretionary under 18 U.S.C. 3583(d), and therefore they are all subject to the oral pronouncement requirement. However, defendant's challenge did not clear even the first of the four plain error hurdles for there was no error at all. In this case, the district court pronounced defendant's conditions of supervised release when it stated that his new term of supervised release would be subject to the same terms and conditions as previously stated in his first written judgment. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law