Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a standard condition of supervised release requiring defendant to "permit a probation officer to visit at any time at home or elsewhere and permit confiscation of any contraband observed in plain view by the probation officer." The condition was imposed after defendant pleaded guilty to interference with commerce by robbery and to brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing this condition in light of defendant's violent conduct, prior drug convictions, multiple probation violations, and failure to abide by the terms of pretrial release. View "United States v. Payton" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit treated the petition for en banc rehearing as a petition for panel rehearing, granted the rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and substituted the following opinion.Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition as time-barred. Petitioner was then granted a certificate of appealability (COA) to consider whether he was entitled to statutory tolling.The court held that when a state prisoner is implicitly granted extra time to seek supervisory writs from the denial of his state post-conviction application—and he does so within that time—his initial application therefore remains "pending" under the tolling provision in section 2244(d)(2). The court explained that its holding was supported by circuit precedent and the Supreme Court's teaching that a state post-conviction application remains pending for statutory tolling purposes as long as the ordinary state collateral review process is in continuance. In this case, petitioner was entitled to statutory tolling and his petition was therefore not time-barred. View "Leonard v. Deville" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of conspiracy to engage in Medicare and Medicaid fraud in their operation of a home healthcare business, continuing over a period of three years and causing over $3.5 million in losses.The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendants Emordi and Isidaehomen's conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that defendants knew of and voluntarily joined the conspiracy. The court also affirmed the district court's imposition of a two-level enhancement to Defendant Okwilagwe's sentence for an offense involving 10 or more victims; affirmed an enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(1)(J) for an intended loss between $3.5 million and $9.5 million; and affirmed the restitution amount. Finally, the court affirmed Defendant Etti's sentence, holding that the district court did not plainly err by imposing the below-Guidelines sentence that was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Emordi" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release and sentence of 27 months in prison. Defendant was convicted for various drug crimes. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court violated his right to confront adverse witnesses by considering hearsay during his revocation hearing. In Morrissey v. Brewer, the Supreme Court established "the minimum requirements of due process" in parole revocation hearings.Applying the Morrissey standard, the court held that the government showed good cause to overcome defendant's right to confront the hearsay declarant arrayed against him. In this case, while defendant's interest may be heightened, it was undoubtedly diminished by the context of the specific facts of the proceedings. Furthermore, the witness's fear, as extensively evidenced in the record, was sufficient to constitute the government's interest in allowing her out-of-court statements. Finally, the court held that the witness's out of court statements had sufficient indicia of reliability. View "United States v. Alvear" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to contest the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner sought a COA for the issue of whether his lawyer failed to investigate, develop, and present mitigating evidence of petitioner's life history and mental issues. The court held that petitioner's claims failed to show a debatable issue when they are stacked against counsel's investigative efforts and the bountiful testimony concerning petitioner's mental health. The court stated that the suggestion that counsel should have gone even further—say, by finding evidence of a head injury or by hiring yet another expert—does not show that the district court's conclusion was debatable. The court also held that petitioner's remaining arguments either do not show a debatable issue or are forfeited, and the court affirmed the order denying an evidentiary hearing. View "Howard v. Davis" on Justia Law

This case was remanded from the Supreme Court in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019), which held that in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) prosecutions the government must prove that the defendant "knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm."The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err when it accepted the factual basis for defendant's guilty plea. The court agreed with the Seventh Circuit that even though due process concerns are implicated when a defendant claims that a Rehaif error rendered his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary, the defendant satisfies plain error review only if he shows that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty had he known of Rehaif. In this case, defendant has not argued, much less shown, that he would have gone to trial if he had been informed of the knowledge of felon status requirement. Given that the facts detailed in the PSR provide ample support for the inference that defendant knew of his felon status when he possessed the firearms, the court held that defendant failed to show that the Rehaif error affected his substantial rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Hicks" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit held that the base offense level of 20 was proper for defendant's felon-in-possession crime involving a semiautomatic firearm that is capable of accepting a large capacity magazine. In this case, defendant failed to show that the district court clearly erred in relying on the FBI's agent statement about what was found in the apartment.The court clarified any confusion and held that the 2013 amendment to the commentary on the acceptance-of-responsibility Guideline does not clearly overrule its caselaw allowing the government to withhold the third point for acceptance of responsibility when it must litigate a suppression motion. The court held that Amendment 775 does not contain the unequivocal override needed to get past the court's precedent. Therefore, the court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Longoria" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing a gun after having been convicted of a felony. The court held that defendant is not entitled to relief on his claim that the government breached the plea deal, and thus his appellate waiver remains enforceable. Accordingly, defendant's challenges to his sentence must be dismissed. View "United States v. McNabb" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion for a new trial on the basis of prejudicial outside influence on the jury. The court held that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in granting the motion for a new trial without holding an evidentiary hearing. To the extent there is a bright-line rule applicable to allegations of outside influence on the jury, the court held that it was not applicable to this case. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising its prerogative, within broadly defined parameters, to handle the allegation of outside influence in the least disruptive manner possible in this unusual case. Finally, the district court permissibly concluded that the evidence showed a sufficient likelihood of prejudice to shift the burden to the Government, and that the Government did not (and could not) show "no reasonable possibility that the jury's verdict was influenced by" the CSO's comments. View "United States v. Jordan" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to felony illegal reentry. In this case, defendant was in the United States to receive necessary eye surgery. Defendant contends that the prospect that he would receive surgery while in prison was a "dominant factor" in the sentence imposed, which would be improper under the Supreme Court's decision in Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 332 (2011).In reviewing for clear and obvious error, the court did not find enough indication that the district court extended defendant's sentence to allow him time to have eye surgery. The court held that the district court's statements as to the possible availability of eye surgery are not clear error, nor is the district court's recommendation that defendant be sent to a specific medical facility. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Saldana" on Justia Law