In United States v. Santiago, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-30149 (5th Cir. Mar. 21, 2024), the Fifth Circuit vacated the defendant’s four convictions and remanded for resentencing because the district court had erred in applying a murder cross-reference without evaluating the defendant’s claim of self-defense.

In United States v. Pike, No. 22-51003, 2024 WL 1192222 (5th Cir. Mar. 20, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to disqualify the defendant’s attorney, who had previously represented one of the Government’s potential witnesses.

In United States v. Marchetti, —- F.4th —-, No. 22-40617 (5th Cir. Mar. 20, 2024), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit illegal remunerations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and it affirmed his sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment. In all, the court rejected five arguments raised by Marchetti.

In United States v. Owens, No. 23-20093 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument that his restitution order was improper because, when he pled guilty, he had been improperly advised under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(K) about the district court’s authority to order restitution.

In United States v. Puri, No. 23-60414 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit dismissed the defendant’s appeal after finding that his appellate counsel had forfeited any objection by failing to respond to the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. This opinion only spans two pages, but it serves as a cautionary tale for appellate counsel.

In United States v. Barrera, No. 23-50043 (5th Cir. Mar. 6, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed two rulings: (1) the district court’s decision to deny Barrera credit for acceptance of responsibility after he pled guilty and (2) its decision to impose the maximum special assessment.

In United States v. Wilson, No. 23-60101 (5th Cir. Feb. 29, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s convictions and his 300-month sentence for crimes involving money laundering and distribution of methamphetamine. Wilson raised eight arguments, all of which were rejected by the appellate court. Here, we briefly summarize those rulings.

In United States v. Hinojosa, No. 22-10584 (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit rejected the three defendants’ challenges to their convictions and sentences relating to drug distribution because “there was extensive evidence in support of each” charge.

In United States v. Garza, —- F.4th —-, No. 22-11007 (5th Cir. Feb. 26, 2024), the Fifth Circuit rejected the defendant’s two arguments and affirmed his judgment and sentence. At trial, Garza had been convicted of (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, (2) possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and (3) unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.

In United States v. King, —- F.4th —-, No. 22-20620 (5th Cir. Feb. 21, 2024), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendants’ convictions, sentences, and restitution awards. Both defendants had been convicted of healthcare fraud and receiving Medicare kickbacks.