Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's order of restitution imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act after defendant was convicted of wire fraud. Defendant's conviction stemmed from him posing as a hacker and threatening to release sensitive information unless BP paid him a fortune in cryptocurrency.Although the court rejected defendant's contention that BP's efforts did not constitute "participation" in the FBI's investigation, the court agreed with defendant that BP's expenses constitute "other expenses" within the meaning of section 3663A(b)(4) of the statute. Therefore, the court held that the statutory text, usage, and Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018), lead it to conclude that BP's expenses fell outside the ambit of section 3663A(b)(4). Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Koutsostamatis" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not reversibly err in assessing defendant's sentence. The court explained that the twelve-month revocation sentence is within the applicable advisory Guidelines policy statement ranges, and that the district court's order that the revocation sentence run consecutively to the sentence for the new marijuana offense is consistent with USSG 7B1.3(f). The court concluded that nothing inappropriate was considered and the district court's sentence was reasonable. View "United States v. Holguin-Hernandez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed defendant's sentence for possession of a firearm as a felon. The court held that, contrary to defendant's approach, Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (2020), broadens the understanding of "a serious drug offense" by focusing on the underlying conduct. Therefore, defendant's conviction for that serious drug offense, as well as his two convictions for the violent felony of burglary of a habitation, triggered the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court held that defendant's prison sentence must accordingly be enhanced, and defendant failed to show a plain error regarding his supervised release. The court remanded for reinstatement of defendant's original sentence. View "United States v. Prentice" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for illegal reentry after removal. The court held that the Ex Post Facto Clause required the sentencing court to apply the 2016 Guidelines to his 2018 offense. The court explained that, under the 2016 Guidelines, those in effect when defendant's crime concluded, his sentencing range would have been 18–24 months. However, under the 2018 Guidelines, defendant's sentencing range jumped to 30–37 months. Therefore, the court held that defendant was ultimately sentenced under the 2018 sentencing range, and the disparity between the 2016 Guidelines range means that he was sentenced in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. View "United States v. Martinez-Ovalle" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for various drug offenses and for possessing firearms as a convicted felon. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's felon in possession conviction, because a reasonable jury could plausibly infer, based on the evidence presented, that defendant had knowledge of the weapons. Furthermore, even assuming the district court plainly erred in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), defendant failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for that error, much less that the error affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Finally, the court held that district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to sever the felon-in-possession count from the drug counts. View "United States v. Huntsberry" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to an obvious constructive amendment to the superseding indictment. In this case, the trial court not only eliminated the scienter requirement of actual knowledge, the element defendant was indicted under, but lowered the factual basis required to prove this essential element from what defendant knew to what he had the reasonable opportunity to observe. Furthermore, counsel's failure to object prejudiced defendant. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Phea" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and waived his right to challenge his conviction and sentence. After defendant was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), the Supreme Court held in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), that the ACCA's residual clause was unconstitutional. Defendant filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, which the district court dismissed.The Fifth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal and held that defendant's section 2255 motion was barred by his collateral-review waiver in his plea agreement. The court held that precedent foreclosed defendant's contention that a defendant cannot waive a right that is unknown at the time that the waiver provision is executed, and that he cannot waive his right to challenge an illegal or unconstitutional sentence. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal under Section 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act. The court held that, although petitioner's state law conviction is not a facial categorical match to the federal schedule of controlled substances, there is no realistic probability that Texas courts will apply its statute to conduct that falls outside of the scope of the federal analog; petitioner is ineligible for withholding of removal because his state law conviction is a "particularly serious crime" within the meaning of the statute; and petitioner's due process rights were not violated where, as a pro se litigant, petitioner successfully secured an initial stay of removal from this court and none of the perceived hindrances he pointed out stopped him from being able to research the law, draft, mail and file his pleadings, and appeal his claims for the better part of four years without the assistance of legal counsel. View "Vetcher v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 84 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute an unspecified amount of methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in calculating the quantity of meth attributable to defendant; the district court did not err by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for maintaining a drug premises under USSG 2D1.1(b)(12); and the district court properly assigned two criminal history points. View "United States v. Eustice" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for unlawful possession of ammunition by a person admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. After determining that defendant's challenge was properly preserved, the court held that defendant was entitled to a three-level sentencing reduction for attempt under USSG 2X1.1(b)(1) because when he was arrested, he was not about to complete all the acts necessary for the separate offense of exportation of ammunition. In this case, all defendant had done was buy ammunition and, at the time of his arrest, he was not en route to deliver the ammunition. Furthermore, there was no definitive evidence of a temporal timeframe here. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Leos" on Justia Law