In United States v. Peña-Rodriguez, No. 23-40476 (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed three sentencing enhancements to the defendant’s sentence for harboring an undocumented person for commercial advantage or financial game. Judge James E. Graves, Jr., dissented in part, believing that the court should have remanded the case for resentencing.

In United States v. Pierre, No. 23-30645 (5th Cir. Oct. 10, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s 348-month prison sentence for multiple drug and gun offenses. In a prior appeal, the court had vacated Pierre’s sentence because the district court had improperly deemed him an “armed career criminal,” but on remand, the district court imposed the same sentence.

In United States v. Howard, No. 24-40033 (5th Cir. Oct. 9, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In part, the court held that Howard’s possession of a second firearm six months after his arrest was “relevant conduct” and “part of the same course of conduct,” which justified a higher Sentencing Guidelines range.

In United States v. Hamilton, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-11132 (5th Cir. Sept. 30, 2024), the Fifth Circuit rejected the defendant’s collateral estoppel claim and affirmed the district court’s decision to deny his motion to dismiss.

In United States v. Ritchey, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-60468 (5th Cir. Sept. 26, 2024), the Fifth Circuit remanded Ritchey’s case for resentencing after agreeing with his argument that the district court had incorrectly calculated the financial loss caused by his crimes.

In United States v. Kriss, No. 23-40706 (5th Cir. Sept. 24, 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that the Government had not breached its plea agreement at sentencing. In short, the court reasoned that the Government may argue that a defendant did not accept responsibility even when it has promised to move for a reduced sentence if the district court decides the defendant has accepted responsibility.

In United States v. Crittenden, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-50007 (5th Cir. Sept. 24, 2024), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s drug conviction despite his claim that the district court had erred by accepting his waiver of conflict-free counsel. The Fifth Circuit also rejected his argument that the jury should have received an instruction on a lesser included offense, although Judge Dennis dissented from that second holding.

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.”