Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit rejected defendant's contentions that 18 U.S.C. 2252A, receipt of child pornography, is unconstitutional because possession and receipt of child pornography are logically inseparable; both section 2252A's legislative history and Sentencing Commission materials recognize their inseparability; prosecutors may arbitrarily decide to charge defendants, for indistinguishable conduct, under the more-severely-punished receipt offense instead of the less severely-punished possession offense; and such prosecutorial control over the ultimate sentence violates the separation of powers. The court also rejected defendant's alternative argument that USSG 2G2.2 is unconstitutional because it violates the separation-of-powers doctrine and invites arbitrary enforcement and application. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss. View "United States v. Ross" on Justia Law

Mississippi aggravated assault is a felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition, in which petitioner argued that the Mississippi statute, MISS. CODE ANN. 97-3-7(2)(a), does not require the use of physical force because it allows conviction only on causing serious bodily injury. The court's recent en banc decision in United States v. Reyes-Contreras, 910 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc), which held that both direct force and indirect force constitute physical force, foreclosed petitioner's claim. View "United States v. Griffin" on Justia Law

In an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a district court's interlocutory order denying a motion for appointment of counsel is not immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. The Fifth Circuit held that the panel opinion in Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405 (5th Cir. 1985), is overruled and dismissed this interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that, even in the small percentage of cases in which the lack of counsel in the district court may restrain a section 1983 plaintiff in the assertion of his rights, the fact that a ruling may burden litigants in ways that are only imperfectly reparable by appellate reversal of a final judgment has never sufficed to breach the collateral-order doctrine. View "Williams v. Catoe" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Applying the plain error standard of review, the court held that whether the government's use of defendant's proffer information constitutes clear or obvious error was of little consequence because his substantial rights were not affected. In this case, although the district court did not specifically articulate how the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the drug quantity was at least 45 kilograms, it did adopt the presentence report and addendum without change. Therefore, defendant failed to carry his burden of proving that he would have received a lesser sentence had the government not referenced the proffer information. View "United States v. Tapia" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's order dismissing an appeal from the IJ's denial of his motion to terminate removal proceedings and order of removal.The Fifth Circuit held that res judicata did not preclude DHS from seeking to remove petitioner on the basis of his burglary conviction, because the convictions for evading arrest with a motor vehicle and burglary of a habitation underlying his removal proceedings were not based on the same nucleus of operative facts. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review in part. The court dismissed the petition for review in part based on lack of jurisdiction, because petitioner argued for the first time on appeal that DHS was precluded from filing a second notice to appear. View "Chavez-Mercado v. Barr" on Justia Law

A district court errs when it relies on a bare allegation of a new law violation contained in a revocation petition unless the allegation is supported by evidence adduced at the revocation hearing or contains other indicia of reliability, such as the factual underpinnings of the conduct giving rise to the arrest.The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 24 month sentence for violating a condition of his supervised release. The court held that the district court erred because it gave significant weight to the bare allegations contained in the revocation petition regarding defendant's arrest on the assault and possession charges and because this impermissible factor was a dominant factor in its decision. However, the court ultimately affirmed the sentence because the error was not clear under existing law. View "United States v. Foley" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Viewing this case under the totality of the circumstances, the court held that reasonable suspicion supported the brief investigatory stop of defendant. In this case, defendant was fleeing from a high-crime area, officers reasonably feared that defendant might draw a weapon or warn the target of their arrest warrant if he were permitted to withdraw from view, and the fact that defendant was not seen committing any criminal activity did not detract from the reasonableness of the officers' suspicion. View "United States v. Darrell" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug-related money laundering conspiracy. The court held that defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable and he was properly sentenced under USSG 2S1.1(a)(1), rather than subsection (a)(2). The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where defendant failed to offer any sufficient grounds to rebut the presumption of reasonableness for a below-Guidelines sentence. View "United States v. Sifuentes" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of federal habeas relief for petitioner, who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that petitioner failed to show that the state court's denial of his claim of actual juror bias was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The court also held that this case, like Uranga v. Davis, 893 F.3d 282, 288 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1179 (2019), was outside the "extreme genre of cases" that would warrant revisiting whether this court recognizes the implied-bias doctrine as clearly established law. View "Buckner v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted the petition for panel rehearing and withdrew its prior opinion, substituting the following opinion.The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The court held that plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact that her race was a motivating factor in her termination or that there was a causal connection between her EEOC complaint and the termination. In this case, plaintiff was terminated as a part of a group of layoffs designed to offset the city's budget shortfall. View "Harville v. City of Houston" on Justia Law