Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Defendant was indicted on one count of attempting to persuade, induce, or entice a child to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) and one count of receipt of child pornography. The indictment stemmed from an incident in which Defendant communicated with an adult whom he believed to be the father of an eleven-year-old child about engaging in sexual activity with the child. Defendant moved to dismiss the enticement count on the basis that he never communicated directly with a child or anyone he believed to be a child. Defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea to the enticement count. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision not to dismiss the enticement charge after noting that Defendant directed some of his intended inducements to the child and took actions directed toward obtaining the child's assent through an intermediary. The Court then held that an individual can violate the statute solely through communications with an adult whom he knows to be an adult, and the contact with the child need not be direct under the statute.

At issue in this case was 18 U.S.C. 3509(m), which contains specific instructions that mandate government retention of child pornography evidence during criminal proceedings. Section 3509(m)'s retention mandate that child pornography remain in the government's possession applies as long as the material is made "reasonably available" to the defendant for purposes of Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. The statute further states that the material is "reasonably available" as long as the government provides "ample opportunity" for the defendant to inspect, view, and examine the material. The district court in this case found that the government failed to provide Defendant with ample opportunity to examine the child pornography evidence at a government facility. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the government did not provide Defendant with "ample opportunity" to inspect, view, or examine the material at the government facility.

Defendant, a federal sex offender, was convicted under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of failing to update his change of address when he moved intrastate. A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed. The panel majority rejected Defendant's argument that Congress did not have the power to criminalize Defendant's failure to register because it could not constitutionally reassert jurisdiction over his intrastate activities after his unconditional release from federal custody. The panel opinion was vacated by the Court's decision to rehear the case en banc. The Court then reversed and rendered a judgment of dismissal, holding that, under the specific and limited facts of this case, Defendant's commission of a federal crime was an insufficient basis for Congress to assert unending criminal authority over him.

Petitioner pled guilty to the charge of conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. He was not informed that his conviction made him eligible for deportation. Later, an immigration judge conducted a hearing and ordered Petitioner's removal. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Petitioner claimed derivative citizenship under 321 of the former Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The BIA denied Petitioner's appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because Petitioner's parents never legally separated, and because Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving that his mother was deceased, Petitioner failed to satisfy INA 321; and (2) INA 321 did not violate Petitioner's equal protection rights.

Defendant sold investors secured debt obligations (SDOs) based on the loans his company made to used-car purchasers. Defendant misrepresented his credentials and insurance coverage on the investments and marketed his investment offerings as though they were as safe as FDIC-backed certificates of deposit. After a jury trial in which Defendant represented himself, Defendant was convicted of securities fraud. The district court sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison, three years' supervised release, and almost $7.3 million in restitution. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not plainly err in admitting a civil order at trial; (2) the jury did not convict Defendant on an invalid alternative theory; (3) the district court properly managed Defendant's pro se representation; (4) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (5) the district court did not err in imposing the sentence.

This appeal arose out of Defendant's attempt to illegally reenter the United States at the United States-Mexico border. A jury convicted Defendant of attempted illegal reentry and for making a false statement to Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not unconstitutionally direct a verdict by commenting on the evidence while delivering the jury instructions and by its response to the jury's note; (2) the district court did not constructively amend the indictment by commenting on the evidence while delivering the jury instructions and responding to the jury's note; and (3) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions.

Appellee, the City of New Orleans, enacted an automated traffic enforcement system ordinance (the Ordinance), which permitted the City to use automated cameras to detect speeding violations and cars entering an intersection against a red light. The district court dismissed Appellants' constitutional challenge to the Ordinance, concluding that the Ordinance (1) was civil in nature, (2) afforded constitutionally adequate due process, and (3) did not violate the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the district court correctly found that the Ordinance (1) imposed a civil penalty rather than criminal penalties; (2) supplied constitutionally adequate process; and (3) did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

A government informant set up a controlled drug deal with two unidentified men. Their conversations were recorded and admitted into evidence at Petitioner's trial in state court. Petitioner was subsequently convicted of the sale of cocaine as an aider and abettor. The intermediate appeals court reversed, concluding that the taped phone conversations constituted hearsay and that admitting them substantially prejudiced Petitioner, justifying a new trial. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the the trial court's judgment. Petitioner then filed a federal habeas petition arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court's admission of the taped phone conversations violated his constitutional rights of confrontation and cross-examination. The federal district court granted Petitioner's petition in part, concluding that that Petitioner's constitutional rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the unidentified individuals' statements were nontestimonial, and therefore, the statements were not within the scope of the Confrontation Clause, and Petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by their admission.

Defendant was indicted for frauds Defendant committed while serving as a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army in Iraq. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. Defendant's appeal dealt with a minimally developed area of law, the applicability of the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, which suspends the running of the statute of limitations for certain crimes when the United States is at war. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Act applied to Defendant and, accordingly, that the Government's indictment in this case was valid.

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.