In United States v. Lopez-Llamas, No. 23-40239 (5th Cir. Sept. 23, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s jury-trial conviction for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine.

In United States v. Gilowski, No. 23-10873 (5th Cir. Sept. 23, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a wife’s petition for adjudication of her legal interest in property that her husband had forfeited as part of his federal sentence on fraud and theft convictions. In short, the Fifth Circuit agreed that the wife had failed to show an interest in the property superior to her husband’s interest “at the time he committed the offenses.” See 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A).

In United States v. Perez-Gorda, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-50218 (5th Cir. Sept. 19, 2024), the Fifth Circuit agreed with the defendant that her jury had received incorrect jury instructions on mail and wire fraud, but it affirmed her conviction anyway because she had not objected to the instructions at trial and there was “no reasonable possibility that a jury would have acquitted under the proper instructions.”

In United States v. Day, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-50636 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 2024), the Fifth Circuit vacated the defendant’s 101-month prison sentence and remanded his case for resentencing.

In United States v. Thomas, No. 23-10735 (5th Cir. Sept. 5, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud. Thomas is a former financial analyst, who pled guilty to misappropriating rebate funds from her employer. At sentencing, Thomas received a 36-month prison sentence, to be followed by two years of supervised release. On appeal, she challenged two of the rules she was ordered to follow while on supervised release.

In United States v. Quintanilla, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-40033 (Aug. 30, 2024), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the two defendants’ convictions for “various federal offenses related to a conspiracy to bribe officials of Weslaco, Texas, to pick certain contractors for an infrastructure project.” This 35-page opinion is a cautionary tale for how attorneys should not litigate a criminal appeal.

In United States v. Estrada-Aguirre, No. 23-50583 (5th Cir. Sept. 3, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument that the Government was collaterally estopped from charging him with making a false statement in an application for a passport and perjury even though years ago he was acquitted at trial on similar charges.

In United States v. Connelly, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-50312 (5th Cir. Aug. 28, 2024), the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3) and § 922(g)(3) were unconstitutional as applied to the defendant, although it reversed the district court’s conclusion that the laws were facially unconstitutional.

In United States v. Medina-Cantu, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-40336 (5th Cir. Aug. 27, 2024) (per curiam), the Fifth Circuit held that recent Supreme Court decisions have not abrogated the Fifth Circuit’s prior holding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) — which prohibits illegal aliens from possessing a firearm or ammunition — is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

In United States v. Kissentaner, No. 23-20348 (5th Cir. Aug. 27, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s conviction for seven counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation and presentation of false tax returns and affirmed her 144-month prison sentence, but it modified the $71,810.00 restitution order.