Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. _____ (2013)
Immigration officials initiated removal proceedings against Chaidez in 2009 upon learning that she had pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 2004. To avoid removal, she sought to overturn that conviction by filing a petition for a writ of coram nobis, contending that her former attorney's failure to advise her of the guilty plea's immigration consequences constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. While her petition was pending, the Supreme Court held, in Padilla v. Kentucky, that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to inform non-citizen clients of the deportation risks of guilty pleas. The district court vacated Chaidez's conviction. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Padilla had declared a new rule and should not apply in a challenge to a final conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed. Padilla does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review. A case does not announce a new rule if it merely applies a principle that governed a prior decision to a different set of facts. Padilla's ruling answered an open question about the Sixth Amendment's reach, in a way that altered the law of most jurisdictions, breaking new ground and imposing a new obligation.
United States v. Terrance Mitchell, United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Docket No. 11-51084
Defendant was found not guilty of second degree murder by reason of insanity and was committed to the Attorney General's custody under 18 U.S.C. 4243(e). Defendant was subsequently found to no longer be a substantial risk to others if he followed a strict treatment regimen and was conditionally released. The district court then later found that defendant failed to comply with the conditions of his release and that he posed a substantial risk of bodily injury to others. Consequently, the district court revoked the release and placed him back into the custody of the Attorney General. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not calling for a competency hearing; defendant failed to raise a valid Sixth Amendment complaint and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to replace counsel; and the district court committed no error in its finding underlying the conclusion to revoke the conditional release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order.
United States v. John Heard et al., United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Docket No. 11-20323
Defendants Heard and Lambert were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States by failing to pay and impeding the IRS's collection of employment taxes. Heard was convicted of additional offenses. Both defendants raised a number of challenges to their convictions and sentences. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict Heard of bribery of a public official; the district court did not err in admitting lay testimony of one of Heard's former employees; Heard's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable; the district court did not err in instructing the jury on Lambert's withdrawal defense based on a six-year statute of limitations; the district court did not err in denying Lambert's motion for judgment of acquittal based on his withdrawal from the conspiracy; any error in finding sufficient notice for Rule 404(b) evidence was harmless; Lambert's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated when the district court refused to allow him to cross-examine an IRS revenue agent; the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of two witnesses concerning Lambert's history of ensuring that their payroll taxes were paid; and Lambert's sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed both defendants' convictions and sentences.
Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. ____ (2013)
Officer Wheetley pulled Harris over for a routine traffic stop. Wheetley sought consent to search Harris's truck, based on Harris's nervousness and seeing an open beer can. When Harris refused, Wheetley executed a sniff test with his trained narcotics dog, Aldo, who alerted at the driver's-side door, leading Wheetley to conclude that he had probable cause to search. The search turned up nothing Aldo was trained to detect, but did reveal ingredients for manufacturing methamphetamine. Harris was charged with illegal possession of those ingredients. In a subsequent stop while Harris was out on bail, Aldo again alerted on Harris's truck but nothing of interest was found. The trial court denied a motion to suppress. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that if an officer failed to keep records of field performance, including how many times a dog falsely alerted, he could never have probable cause to think the dog a reliable indicator of drugs. The Supreme Court reversed. Training and testing records supported Aldo's reliability in detecting drugs and Harris failed to undermine that evidence, so Wheetley had probable cause to search. Whether an officer has probable cause depends on the totality of the circumstances, not rigid rules, bright-line tests, and mechanistic inquiries. Requiring the state to introduce comprehensive documentation of a dog's prior hits and misses in the field is the antithesis of a totality-of-the-circumstances approach. Field records may sometimes be relevant, but the court should evaluate all the evidence, and should not prescribe an inflexible set of requirements.
Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. _____ (2013)
While police were preparing to execute a search warrant for a basement apartment, detectives in an unmarked car outside the apartment saw two men, later identified as Bailey and Middleton, leave the gated area above the apartment, get in a car, and drive away. The detectives followed for about a mile, then stopped the car. They found keys during a pat-down search of Bailey, who said that he resided in the apartment. He later denied it when informed of the search. The men were handcuffed and driven to the apartment, where the search team had found a gun and illicit drugs. One of Bailey's keys unlocked the apartment's door. The district court denied Bailey's motion to suppress the key and statement, holding that Bailey's detention was justified under Michigan v. Summers, as a detention incident to execution of a search warrant, and, in the alternative, that the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio. Bailey was convicted. The Second Circuit affirmed, without ruling on the Terry claim. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for determination of whether Terry applies. The rule in Summers, permitting detention even if there is no particular suspicion that an individual is involved in criminal activity or poses a specific danger to officers, is limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched. None of the law enforcement interests identified in Summers applies with similar force to the detention of recent occupants beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched.
United States v. Arnoldo Gonzalez-Garcia, United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Docket No. 11-41365
Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's partial denial of his motion to suppress. The district court found that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of the house containing marijuana. His consent was not automatically involuntary merely because his Miranda rights were violated. And even if government agents violated Edwards v. Arizona when they sought his consent, the Edwards violation would not suffice to justify suppression of the marijuana. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment.
United States v. Carlos Hernandez, United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, No. 11-50669
Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine. After the district court denied defendant's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant filed a notice of appeal and the district court denied him a certificate of appealability (COA). The court then granted a COA, in relevant part on the issue of whether defendant's Rule 60(b) motion presented a successive habeas petition within the meaning of Gonzalez v. Crosby. The court concluded that it did, and thus the district court was not permitted to consider the motion. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.
United States v. Keith M. Kennedy et al., United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Docket No. 11-60431
Defendants appealed their convictions stemming from charges related to their scheme to fraudulently obtain mortgage loans. The primary issue on appeal was whether the wire fraud convictions and money laundering convictions merged to result in convictions for two crimes on the same facts, when the facts should support convictions for wire fraud. The court held that the district court correctly found that the wire fraud and money laundering convictions did not merge. The wire fraud crimes were complete before the conduct forming the basis of the money laundering convictions began, and defendants used only profits from the underlying wire fraud to promote further wire fraud crimes. Finally, defendants have failed to identify any reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Bobby Smith v. Burl Cain, United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Docket No. 10-30665
Petitioner sought federal habeas relief raising Batson v. Kentucky claims. The court subsequently granted petitioner a Certificate of Appealability (COA) on the limited issue of comparative juror analysis required by Miller-El v. Dretke. After the COA was granted, the Supreme Court decided Cullen v. Pinholster, which called in question whether the district court could properly grant petitioner an evidentiary hearing on his Batson claim. The court held that Pinholster's restriction did not bar the federal evidentiary hearing conducted in this case because the district court first concluded, solely on the basis of the state court record, that the state courts committed legal error, as required under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), through the state courts' "unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law." After reviewing the record, the court held that petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving that the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for striking the two black panelists at issue were a pretext for purposeful discrimination and affirmed the judgment of the district court.
United States v. Dean Moore et al., United States Court of Appeal, 5th Circuit, Docket No. 11-30877
Defendants Mathew Dean Moore and Melvin Williams, former New Orleans Police Officers (NOPD), appealed their convictions and sentences arising from an incident that resulted in the death of an individual. The court concluded that a jury could reasonably conclude from the evidence that the individual's death was proximately caused by and the foreseeable result of being kicked in the chest by Williams; the district court did not err by basing Williams' sentence on the base offense of voluntary manslaughter; the evidence was sufficient to sustain Moore's conviction for aiding and abetting the submission of a false incident report and by obstructing a federal investigation through the submission of a false NOPD incident report and aiding and abetting each other; the evidence was sufficient to sustain Moore's conviction for making false, material statements to the FBI; and the district court did not err in determining Moore's sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences.
United States v. Demmitt, United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Docket No. 11-11120
Defendant appealed her convictions of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, wire fraud, and money laundering. Defendant's convictions stemmed from her involvement in an insurance annuity scheme with her son to defraud customers. The court held that defendant cited no authority in support of her contentions as to the impropriety of admitting a certain witness's testimony and therefore, waived this argument; the record showed that the Government presented significant evidence, albeit circumstantial, that demonstrated defendant was actually involved in her son's scheme or deliberately indifferent to it; given that this evidence was cumulative of the factual resume, the trial court's error in admitting it was harmless and did not warrant reversal; the deliberate ignorance instruction was proper; and no rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established all of the essential elements of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore, the court vacated defendant's money laundering conviction (Count 27).
United States v. Garza, United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Docket No. 11-10543
Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Defendant subsequently violated the conditions of his supervised release and was sentenced to 24-months of imprisonment to be followed by 24-months of supervised released. Defendant appealed. The court held that 18 U.S.C. 3582(a) applied to a revocation sentence and the district court erred under Tapia v. United States by considering defendant's rehabilitative needs in imposing his prison sentence. Further, the error affected defendant's substantial rights. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing.
United States v. Alvarez, United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Docket No. 11-41371
Claimant appealed an order of criminal forfeiture. Claimant is the minor child of Omar Alvarez, who pleaded guilty to drug charges and in his plea agreement, agreed to forfeit his interest in certain property, which he admitted to using in furtherance of the conspiracy. Because the petition was untimely under 21 U.S.C. 853(n)(2), the court affirmed the dismissal of claimant's claim.
United States v. Stoker, United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Docket No. 11-60754
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence on two counts of retaliating against and threatening a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1513(e) and 876(c). The court found that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant on both counts. However, because his crime of retaliation could not be a crime of violence under the career offender guideline, the court misapplied the longest noted guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
United States v. Cervantes, et al, United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Docket No. 11-41385
Defendants were convicted on charges stemming from a sting operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Defendants worked with an undercover agent to plan an armed home invasion with the aim of stealing a large quantity of drugs. On appeal, defendants challenged their convictions and sentences on a number of grounds. The court held that the district court's only error occurred when it applied a two-level sentence enhancement to the drug conspiracy charge that should not have been applied. Defendants' other arguments lacked merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing.
State of Louisiana v. Manuel Ortiz, Supreme Court of Louisiana, Docket No. 11-KP-2799
Respondent Manuel Ortiz was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1995 for the killing of his wife. The State urged jurors to find that Respondent was involved in a murder-for-hire scheme motivated by his desire to collect on an insurance policy taken out on the wife. Post-conviction relief proceedings stretched out over years. One of the allegations Respondent raised on appeal involved prosecutorial misconduct by a former assistant district attorney. The litigation took place against the background of the assistant DA's subsequent but unrelated legal difficulties which resulted his disbarment and imprisonment on federal charges. The district court ultimately denied respondent the post-conviction relief he sought, effectively rejecting specific claims that the assistant DA had suppressed certain exculpatory evidence and suborned perjury, but vacated Respondent's death sentence. Both Respondent and the State appealed the district court's decision. With no evidence that any prosecutorial decision made before or during the guilt or sentencing stages of trial stemmed in whole or part from any pecuniary interest in the insurance proceeds relating to the victim's death (including the decision to charge Respondent with his wife's murder), the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in vacating Respondent's death sentence. Accordingly, the Court reversed the appellate court's decision and reinstated respondent's death sentence.
United States v. Andres, United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, No. 11-40783
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and in applying a two-point sentencing enhancement for use of a minor to commit his crime. Because the officer's continued search and seizure beyond the scope of the initial traffic stop were justified by additional reasonable suspicion, the district court did not err in concluding that the scope of the stop was reasonable. Because the court found that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the drug evidence, the court did not reach the remaining plain error factors. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying the U.S.S.G. 3B1.4 enhancement where defendant's choice to drive a truck containing over twenty kilograms of cocaine and a four-year-old girl from Laredo to Chicago constituted an "affirmative act" involving a minor in the offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
United States v. Fraga, United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, No. 12-40302
Defendant appealed his sentence and lifetime term of supervised release following a guilty plea to failing to register as a sex offender. The court found that the sentencing judge adequately explained her reasons for rejecting defendant's mitigating evidence and imposing an upward variance on the term of imprisonment. Therefore, defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable. Likewise, the court held that the 27 months of imprisonment was substantively reasonable where the sentencing judge did not abuse her discretion by determining that defendant's willingness to cooperate did not mitigate his offense or criminal history, and in giving significant weight to defendant's criminal history and its characteristics. The court held, however, that the order regarding the lifetime term of supervised release must be vacated because the sentencing judge did not give reasons for her decision.
United States v. Gutierrez, United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, No. 12-50028
Defendant was arrested and charged with threatening to kill the President, a former President, and a federal law enforcement officer. On appeal, defendant challenged an order of the district court directing the BOP to involuntarily administer psychiatric medicine to him for the purpose of restoring his competency to stand trial. The court found that the BOP satisfactorily complied with the 1992 version of CFR 549.43(a)(5), which required that a psychiatrist hearing officer "determine whether treatment or psychotropic medication was necessary in order to attempt to make the inmate competent for trial." In light of Sell v. United States, the court affirmed the district court's order approving involuntary medication for the purpose of restoring defendant to competency.
Rodriguez v. Holder, Jr., United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, No. 10-60763
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the decision of the BIA that he was removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony. The IJ concluded that petitioner's conviction for attempted sexual assault under Texas Penal Code section 22.011 was a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. 16(b) because the offense presented a substantial risk of the use of physical force against another. When petitioner appealed the IJ's order of removal, the BIA dismissed the appeal. Because the record did not establish that petitioner was convicted of an aggravated felony, as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43), the court granted his petition and vacated the order of removal.
Contact Stephen D. Hébert
700 Camp Street, Suite 216
New Orleans, LA 70130
Office: 504-528-9500 Ext. 790
Monday – Friday, 9am – 5pm
Saturday, 9am – 12pm