Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, former police officer Orlando Hale was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and using or carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense or possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Hale's conviction and sentence, holding, inter alia, that the district court (1) abused its discretion in finding that Hale waived his right to file a motion to dismiss based on a Speedy Trial Violation, but there was no violation of the Speedy Trial Act in this case; (2) did not err in excluding certain out-of-court statements as inadmissible hearsay; (3) did not plainly err by not instructing the jury on the substantive crime underlying the conspiracy, actual possession within intent to distribute cocaine; (4) did not err when it failed to include Hale's proposed jury instruction; and (5) did not err by applying two level enhancements to Hale's sentence.

This appeal arose out of the Government's indictment of Defendant for frauds Defendant committed while serving as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army in Iraq. At issue on appeal was the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 3287. Better known as the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, section 3284 suspends the running of the statute of limitations for certain crimes when the United States is at war. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment based on the expiration of the statute of limitations, which the district court denied based on the applicability of section 3287. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed, arguing that the termination clause in the Act prevented the Government's indictment of Defendant. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that since neither Congress nor the president met the formal requirements for terminating the Act's suspension of limitations as of the date of when the last of Defendant's criminal conduct occurred, section 3287 applies to Defendant, and accordingly, the Government's indictment in this case was valid.

Jose Marquez pleaded guilty to a two-count indictment charging him with participation in drug and money laundering conspiracies. After conducting a hearing, the district court sentenced Marquez to life in prison on count one and to 240 months on count two. In imposing its sentence, the district court applied firearm and leadership enhancements. Additionally, a subsequently entered written judgment of conviction ordered Marquez to forfeit $2,000,000. Marquez challenged the sentencing enhancements and the forfeiture order on appeal. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court's decision to apply the sentencing enhancements was not clearly erroneous; and (2) although certain deficiencies in the district court's handling of the forfeiture were plainly erroneous, because Marquez did not demonstrate that his substantial rights were affected by the district court's errors, he was not entitled to relief.

Defendant pled guilty to using a communication facility in committing conspiracy to possess cocaine hydrochloride with the intent to distribute it. Defendant was sentenced to three years of probation. Two years later, the probation office successfully petitioned the district court to issue a warrant for Defendant based on a violent incident that resulted in his arrest. The district court subsequently revoked Defendant's probation and sentenced him to four years of imprisonment with no term of supervised release. The court also ordered Defendant not to have contact with his daughter. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence the district court imposed upon revoking Defendant's probation, holding that because Defendant did now show the court committed a procedural error or that his sentence was substantively unreasonable, he did not show that his sentence was plainly unreasonable.

After a jury trial, Defendant Ryan Mudd was convicted of a single count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to seventy-seven months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release. Mudd appealed. The Fifth Circuit (1) affirmed Mudd's conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support to the conviction, as the evidence created a plausible inference of Mudd's guilty knowledge, an element of the crime; and (2) vacated Mudd's sentence in part, finding that a conflict existed between the district court's oral pronouncement at sentencing and written judgment. Remanded with instructions to conform the written judgment to the oral pronouncement at sentencing.

Plaintiff, a Texas prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint against the chaplain of the Preston Smith Unit and other defendants, alleging that he was denied religious devotional items that the chaplain had given him permission to order. After reviewing plaintiff's pro se appeal, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants because there was no genuine dispute as to any material facts.

Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and the district court applied a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(5) based on the government's proof that the offense involved the importation of methamphetamine. Defendant argued that the enhancement was not applicable because he did not know that the methamphetamine he possessed was imported. The court affirmed the sentence and held that the enhancement applied irrespective of whether defendant knew that the possessed methamphetamine had been unlawfully imported.

Defendant, mayor of Ball, Louisiana, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States in connection with major disaster benefits in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1040. On appeal, defendant argued that the government violated the plea agreement by advocating for a higher loss calculation than the one agreed to and that the district court erred in its loss calculation by including legitimate claims with fraudulent ones. The court held that the breach of the plea agreement likely did not affect the sentence so defendant's substantial rights were not affected and, as a result, the district court did not plainly err. Even if the error affected defendant's substantial rights, the court declined to exercise its discretion to require resentencing. The court also held that the district court committed no error by including the entire amount requested from FEMA after Hurricane Gustav, as well as a small portion requested after Hurricane Rita, as intended loss.

Defendant pled guilty to one count of structuring financial transactions to evade federal reporting requirements. DHS subsequently attempted to introduce defendant's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) in a removal proceeding; the immigration court refused to admit the PSR without the district court's approval, which DHS then sought. Defendant in turn requested criminal contempt sanctions against the DHS attorneys who pursued disclosure of his PSR. The district court granted DHS's motion after redacting much of defendant's information and denied the sanctions request. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the United States v. Huckaby factors, for determining a "compelling, particularized need for disclosure," nor did it err in evaluating and balancing those factors. Further, that court did not abuse its discretion in declining to initiate contempt proceedings, as DHS's attorneys did not contumaciously violate a clear order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant pled guilty under a plea agreement to possession of child pornography and his plea agreement was conditioned on retaining the right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress on appeal. Defendant claimed that the search warrant that led officers to the pornography violated the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, holding that the search warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment's particularity and probable cause requirements under the circumstances.