Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371 to commit a deprivation of civil rights, an offense defined by 18 U.S.C. 242. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's application of a four-level dangerous-weapon enhancement, a three-level bodily injury enhancement, and a six-level public official or color-of-law enhancement. The court held that the district court did not procedurally err in sentencing defendant, and that the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a downward variance. In this case, defendant failed to demonstrate that his within-guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable, and the district court expressly acknowledged its consideration of defendant's arguments before imposing a 60-month sentence. View "United States v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Defendant filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion seeking vacatur of his sentence in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which rendered a residual clause similar to the one found in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied the motion, relying on Fifth Circuit precedent (at the time) that foreclosed vagueness challenges to section 924(c)(3)(B), and concluded that section 924(c)(3)(B) was not unconstitutionally vague.The Fifth Circuit granted granted a certificate of appealability. The court held that the Supreme Court abrogated the precedent that the district court relied on in denying the section 2255 motion, agreeing with defendant that United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), rendered section 924(c)(3)'s residual clause unconstitutional. However, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion on alternative grounds, holding that defendant's predicate convictions for bank robbery and attempted murder qualify as crimes of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A). Therefore, Davis does not impact his convictions. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's two concurrent 480-month sentences for drug-trafficking offenses. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the methamphetamine seized in Gulfport was relevant conduct to his cocaine trafficking convictions; because defendant's 480-month sentence falls within the statutory maximum term, the district court's factfinding by a preponderance of the evidence did not run afoul of the Fifth Amendment; and, even if the district court committed plain error in imposing an offense-level adjustment for abusing a position of trust, defendant could not prove that any error affected his substantial rights. View "United States v. Nava" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit heard this case en banc to resolve inconsistency in its caselaw on one common issue: How does the requirement that a court pronounce its sentence in the presence of the defendant apply to supervision conditions?The court stated that what matters is whether a condition is required or discretionary under the supervised release statute, 18 U.S.C. 3583(d). If a condition is required, making an objection futile, the court need not pronounce it. If a condition is discretionary, the court must pronounce it to allow for an objection. In this case, because the district court adopted the conditions the PSR proposed, it pronounced the three conditions it was required to: the financial disclosure requirement and the gambling and credit restrictions.The court clarified the law governing supervised release conditions in three respects: 1. A sentencing court must pronounce conditions that are discretionary under 18 U.S.C. 3583(d); 2. When a defendant fails to raise a pronouncement objection in the district court, review is for plain error if the defendant had notice of the conditions and an opportunity to object; 3. A sentencing court pronounces supervision conditions when it orally adopts a document recommending those conditions. View "United States v. Diggles" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the terms of supervised release and the revocation sentences imposed by the district court. In United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), the Supreme Court struck down 18 U.S.C. 3583(k), a separate provision of the federal supervised-release statute that imposed a five-year minimum sentence on convicted sex offenders who committed certain specified sex offenses while on supervised release.The court held that there is currently no caselaw from either the Supreme Court or this circuit extending Haymond to 18 U.S.C. 3583(g) revocations, and thus the district court could not have committed any "clear or obvious" error in applying the statute. The court also held that defendant's 48-month revocation sentence is not substantively unreasonable. In this case, defendant failed to identify any objective error in the district court’s within-Guidelines revocation sentence. View "United States v. Badgett" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for illegal reentry where the Government conceded a Guidelines calculation error. The court held that the error affected defendant's substantial rights and failure to correct the error would seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Pena" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that TDCJ's adoption and implementation of measures guided by changing CDC recommendations in regards to the COVID-19 pandemic do not go far enough. Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, seeking a preliminary injunction.The Fifth Circuit granted TDCJ's motion to stay the district court's preliminary injunction, which regulates the cleaning intervals for common areas, the types of bleach-based disinfectants the prison must use, the alcohol content of hand sanitizer that inmates must receive, mask requirements for inmates, and inmates' access to tissues (amongst many other things). The court held that TDCJ is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal because: (1) after accounting for the protective measures TDCJ has taken, plaintiffs have not shown a "substantial risk of serious harm" that amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment"; and (2) the district court committed legal error in its application of Farmer v. Brennan, by treating inadequate measures as dispositive of defendants' mental state. In this case, even assuming that there is a substantial risk of serious harm, plaintiffs lack evidence of defendants' subjective deliberate indifference to that harm. The court also held that TDCJ has shown that it will be irreparably injured absent a stay, and that the balance of the harms and the public interest favor a stay. Finally, the court held that plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies as required in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and the district court's injunction goes well beyond the limits of what the PLRA would allow even if plaintiffs had properly exhausted their claims. View "Valentine v. Collier" on Justia Law

18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits individuals subject to certain domestic violence protective orders from possessing firearms or ammunition for any purpose, is facially constitutional under the Fifth Circuit's two-step NRA framework. Even assuming arguendo that the conduct at issue -- the keeping and possessing of firearms by individuals subject to domestic protective orders -- falls within the Second Amendment right, defendant's facial challenge fails. The court applied intermediate scrutiny and held that section 922(g)(8) is reasonably adapted to the government interest of reducing domestic gun abuse.The court also held that if the commonly understood definitions of terms in the protective order include acts involving "physical force," the protective order is sufficient to support a conviction under section 922(g)(8)(C)(ii). In this case, the jury plausibly found that the order satisfied the statute and the court declined to reverse defendant's conviction on this basis. However, the court remanded for the limited purpose of conforming defendant's written judgment to the district court's oral pronouncement. View "United States v. McGinnis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and 924(e) by knowingly possessing a firearm after he had been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The court held that the district court committing plain error by violating Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 when it relied on factual allegations in the confidential sentencing recommendation that were not in the presentence report and that were not disclosed by defendant. The court explained that the use of undisclosed facts to justify an above-guidelines sentence seriously affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings. Therefore, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the substance abuse testing requirement in defendant's term of supervised release. The court held that there was no conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, rejecting defendant's claims to the contrary. The court also held that the substance abuse testing condition related to, among other things, the nature and circumstances of defendant's offense, his personal history and characteristics, and the need to afford adequate deterrence. Therefore, the district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise. View "United States v. Hinojosa" on Justia Law