Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Chedowry Thomas, Henry Davis, and Woodrow Chapman were tried on counts of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance and attempt to possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance. All three appellants were convicted on the conspiracy count. The jury determined that, with respect to Thomas and Davis, the offense involved five kilograms or more of cocaine. Thomas and Davis were also convicted of attempt to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Chapman was acquitted on the attempt count. All three appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed all three judgments of conviction on conspiracy, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; but (2) reversed the judgments for attempt on the basis of improper venue.

After being arrested by U.S. Border Patrol Agent Harold Gill at a traffic stop in Louisiana, Defendant Francisco Rico-Soto was convicted of harboring illegal aliens. Defendant appealed the admission of evidence obtained from the warrantless stop, claiming lack of reasonable suspicion. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the government presented several different elements that, when combined, led Gill reasonably to suspect criminal activity; (2) these facts triggered the various Brignoni-Ponce factors, which demonstrated that Gill's stop was justified; and (3) the confluence of facts, along with numerous small pieces of confirmatory evidence, justified an agent with Gill's experience in stopping Defendant.

Defendant were convicted of illegal gambling, conspiring to commit illegal gambling, and money laundering for their roles in a "sweepstakes" promotion at three Internet cafes in Texas. Defendants challenged their convictions on a variety of grounds but contended principally that there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions and that the district court erred in refusing to allow them to present a "mistake-of-law" defense. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) reversed Defendants' convictions for money laundering for insufficient evidence; and (2) affirmed Defendants' other convictions, holding (i) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and (ii) the district court did not err in preventing Defendants from putting on a mistake-of-law defense because they did not reasonably rely on any official statements or written interpretations.

The EEOC brought this Title VII case against Boh Brothers Construction Company on behalf of the alleged discriminatee, Kerry Woods, a male construction worker in an all-male crew, who claimed that the Boh Brothers' crew superintendent, Charles Wolfe, engaged in same-sex harassment against him by referring to him in raw homophobic epithets and lewd gestures. The jury returned a substantial verdict of actual and punitive damages against Boh Brothers, and the district court granted injunctive relief. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that the evidence did not establish a claim of unlawful same-sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. Remanded for judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendant was convicted of illegal re-entry. Defendant contended that the district court erred in considering his need for anger management courses in determining the length of his sentence. At issue in this case was whether, when the law at the time of trial or plea is unsettled, but becomes clear while the case is pending on appeal, review for the second prong of the plain error test properly considers the law as it stood during the district court proceedings or at the time of the appellate court's decision. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals joined the majority of other circuits in holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal, the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal. The Court then held that the district court's determination under the second prong of the plain error test was plain error, and the error affected Defendant's substantial rights. The Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

Defendant Edward Teuschler pled guilty to distributing child pornography after he sent pornographic images to an undercover officer posing as a thirteen-year-old girl. The district court sentenced Defendant to 180 months imprisonment. Defendant appealed his sentence. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the district court, holding (1) pursuant to United States v. Fowler, the district court erred by imposing a three-level enhancement on Defendant's sentence based on the number of images involved; and (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that the Guidelines for child pornography crimes violate the Equal Protection Clause. Remanded for resentencing.

Petitioner, an alien with a detainer placed against him, challenged the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition seeking the benefit of drug-rehabilitation programs and halfway house placement. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under section 2241 on grounds that the asserted claims should have been brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In the alternative, the district court held the case should be dismissed because Defendant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Finally, the court alternatively held, with respect to the merits, that Defendant had failed to state a claim for the denial of any constitutional right. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court (1) erred in its conclusion that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under section 4421; (2) erred in dismissing the complaint for Petitioner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies; but (3) correctly dismissed Petitioner's petition on the merits for failure to state a claim for the denial of any constitutional right, as Defendant failed to establish a denial of his due-process or equal-protection rights.

The government filed a two-count indictment charging Defendant and three other co-defendants with interference with commerce by robbery and conspiracy to commit the same offense. Defendant moved to dismiss the charges under the Speedy Trial Act because the indictment was filed more than thirty days after Defendant was transferred to federal custody. The government argued that the period of delay resulted from the absence of an essential witness, one of Defendant's co-conspirators, and therefore, the indictment was excluded from the thirty-day limit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(3)(A). The district court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the charges. Defendant later entered a conditional guilty to both counts. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction and vacated his sentence, holding (1) the government failed to show that the co-conspirator was an essential witness for the purposes of obtaining a grand jury indictment against Defendant, and therefore, the indictment was filed beyond the time allowed by the Speedy Trial Act. Remanded.

Petitioner was convicted in Mississippi of capital murder. Petitioner later filed a petition for habeas relief in federal district court. While acknowledging that Petitioner's habeas petition was filed more than one year after the state court judgment became final, the district court found that equitable tolling was warranted under the circumstances. The court subsequently denied habeas relief on all grounds raised but granted a Certificate of Appealability (COA) on Defendant's Batson claims and claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his trial. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to expand the COA with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The State of Mississippi appealed the district court's judgment holding that Petitioner's Batson claims were not procedurally barred and that the statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was equitably tolled in Defendant's case. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied his motion to expand the COA, holding that AEDPA's statute of limitations had run when Defendant filed his application for postconviction relief, and tolling was not warranted under these circumstances.

Appellant Jibreel Rashad, the owner of a construction company, was convicted and sentenced for violating the Hobbs Act in a crude pay-to-play scheme practiced by Dallas, Texas officials against low-income housing developers. The Fifth Circuit Court of appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant's conviction under the Hobbs Act for conspiracy to obstruct, delay or affect commerce by extortion; (2) the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not affect Appellant's substantial rights and were not prejudicial; and (3) the district court did not plainly err in imposing Appellant's sentence, and the sentence was not unreasonable.