Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit held that a certificate of appealability (COA) that fails to indicate which specific issues or issues satisfy the showing required violates the clear command of 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(3). In this case, issuing a COA instructing the government to address all other constitutional issues raised in petitioner's COA motion was a legal error. Furthermore, the court held that petitioner has not made a substantial showing on the merits of any constitutional claim. Accordingly, the court vacated the COA and dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence of illegally reentering the United States following removal. Defendant argued that the district court's admission of five partial Form I-213's that documented immigration agents' prior encounters with him violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him and were inadmissible hearsay.The court held that the admitted portions of defendant's Form I-213's did not offend the Confrontation Clause and were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)'s hearsay exception for public records. In this case, portions of the Form I-213's admitted were nontestimonial and the court had no occasion to consider the Sixth Amendment status of the forms' remaining pages, which were not admitted at trial. Furthermore, the forms were generated for administrative purposes, as opposed to anticipation of trial. Therefore, the forms were not subject to Rule 803(8)(A)(ii)'s limited bar against law enforcement reports. View "United States v. Noria" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for distribution and possession with intent to distribute heroin resulting in serious bodily injury, and conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to find that the heroin defendant supplied was the but-for cause of the victim's serious bodily injury; given the overwhelming weight of authority, any asserted error by the district court in failing to instruct the jury that proximate cause was an element of the offense for the distribution charge was not plain; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial and thus rejecting defendant's claim that the government's key witness was unreliable and incredible. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The abuse of discretion standard of review generally applies to rulings on motions to resentence under the First Step Act, because the Act gives the district court broad discretion in deciding whether to resentence. The Fifth Circuit held that, to the extent the district court's determination turns on "the meaning of a federal statute" such as the Act, the court's review is de novo.The court affirmed the district court's explanation, on limited remand, that it exercised its discretion not to resentence. In this case, the court held that although defendant was eligible for resentencing under the Act because he had a covered offense, the district court had broad discretion not to resentence him. The district court noted that defendant's life sentence still would have fallen within the appropriate statutory range were the Act applied, and it relied on his extensive criminal history and central role in the offense. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of appellants' challenges to the Texas Sex Offender Registration Program. The Program is codified in Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.The court held that procedural due process challenges to Chapter 62 failed because conviction of a sex offense entails all requisite process for the state to impose sex-offender conditions. The court also held that ex post facto, Eighth Amendment, and double jeopardy challenges do not cross the minimum pleading threshold because Chapter 62 is nonpunitive. In this case, appellants claims to the contrary were unpersuasive. View "Doe v. Abbott" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for charges related to his role in a massive conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud. The court held that defendant's claim that the district court violated Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 when it admitted into evidence certain summary charts was meritless under any standard of review; there was no error in admitting evidence of the criminal convictions of two of his co-conspirators for legitimate purposes, and any error in admitting evidence of the criminal convictions of three other co-conspirators was harmless; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the deliberate ignorance instruction.The court also rejected defendant's challenges to the district court's calculation of his recommended sentence under the sentencing guidelines, and upheld the district court's finding of the loss amount, that his fraud involved ten or more victims, and that his case involved a large number of vulnerable victims. Finally, the court upheld the district court's calculations of restitution and held that the district court did not clearly err in its forfeiture calculation. View "United States v. Mazkouri" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's dismissal of a 2018 indictment charging defendant with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The court agreed with the government's contention that the district court erred in sustaining defendant's collateral attack on his underlying 2013 deportation order and dismissing the 2018 illegal-reentry indictment.In this case, the district court found that the IJ and the BIA erroneously classified bail jumping as an aggravated felony and the error led the IJ not to consider defendant's claims for asylum and withholding of removal. The court disagreed with the district court for two reasons: first, the district court diluted the actual prejudice standard; and second, applying the correct actual-prejudice standard, the record foreclosed any notion that defendant likely would have escaped deportation either through asylum or withholding of removal. The court saw nothing in the record indicating that defendant was likely eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Therefore, even assuming the IJ and BIA erred in classifying defendant's bail jumping conviction as an aggravated felony, defendant still could not show actual prejudice under section 1326(d). View "United States v. Ramirez-Cortinas" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendants Jordan and Wise's convictions and sentences for aiding and abetting aggravated credit union robbery. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain Jordan's conviction; if the district court erred in admitting testimony that Jordan and Wise were brothers, the error was harmless; and the district court did not plainly err by admitting evidence that two co-defendants pleaded guilty. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support Wise's conviction; the district court did not plainly err in failing to give a Rosemond instruction; the district court did not clearly err in applying a six-level guidelines enhancement for the use of firearms; and the district court did not clearly err in denying Wise's request for a guidelines reduction for his role in the robbery. View "United States v. Jordan" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for driving while intoxicated on the grounds of a military joint base. The court applied the same standard of review used by the district court, holding that the magistrate judge was not required to credit plaintiff's testimony that she had only taken Benadryl and his decision to credit the officer's testimony that plaintiff smelled of alcohol and exhibited behavior consistent with intoxication was not clearly erroneous. Furthermore, plaintiff's additional argument that the magistrate judge improperly considered her reasons for testifying were unsupported by the record, and the record showed that the magistrate judge held the government to its burden of proof. View "United States v. Hambright" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its previous opinion and substituted the following opinion.The court vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The court held that the district court clearly erred by applying a two-level enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(15)(A) for using fear, impulse, friendship, affection, or some combination thereof to involve another individual in the offense. The court interpreted the word "use" under USSG 2D1.1(b)(15)(A) as requiring active employment of affection on the part of the defendant. Under the court's interpretation of the verb "used" in USSG 2D1.1(b)(15)(A), the evidence in the record did not support a two-level enhancement to defendant's offense level because he did not actively employ or play upon affection to induce involvement by his girlfriend in the offense. Finally, any argument as to harmlessness was forfeited and, even if the court were to consider the issue, the court held that the error was not harmless. View "United States v. Aguilar-Alonzo" on Justia Law