In United States v. Barajas, No. 23-10853 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 2024) (unpublished), the defendant had filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asking to vacate her sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied that motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, and on appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed that decision.

In United States v. Lee Roy Villarreal, No. 23-20144 (5th Cir. Dec. 3, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s trial conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. In so doing, the court rejected Villarreal’s arguments that he should have been allowed to admit at trial a recorded interview of a government cooperator, that the district court should have made a particularized inquiry into the cooperator’s Fifth Amendment invocation, and that the district court should have immunized the cooperator.

In United States v. Minor, 121 F.4th 1085 (5th Cir. 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that under the career offender enhancement in USSG § 4B1.1, courts must apply the Controlled Substances Act’s definition of “controlled substance” that is in effect at the time of sentencing for the defendant’s current offense.

In United States v. Qureshi, —- F.4th —-, No. 22-20328 (5th Cir. Nov. 20, 2024), the Fifth Circuit vacated several of the defendant’s convictions for distribution of controlled substances, and it remanded his case for further proceedings.

In United States v. Burk, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-50602 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2022), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s convictions for wire fraud and money laundering, but it remanded his case for a resentencing because the district court should not have applied a Sentencing Guidelines enhancement for abuse of a position of trust.

In United States v. Hernandez Velasquez, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-11170 (5th Cir. Nov. 8, 2024), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The court held that it was proper to place the burden on the defendant to “prove the invalidity of his waiver of rights in connection with the underlying deportation, rather than on the government to prove the waiver’s validity.”

In United States v. Emerson, No. 23-50905 (5th Cir. Oct. 25, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to deny Emerson’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviews suppression evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and under that standard, the officer in this case identified “numerous specific and articulable facts and inferences that established reasonable suspicion,” sufficient to justify making the traffic stop. In particular, the Fifth Circuit highlighted these facts:

In United States v. Henry, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-30589 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2024), the Fifth Circuit affirmed Henry’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), but the court vacated his sentence because he did not possess the firearm “in connection with” another crime, as required by USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).

In United States v. Dajuan Martin, —-F.4th —-, No. 23-30917 (5th Cir. Oct. 15, 2024), the Fifth Circuit upheld the defendant’s sentence enhancement for using a firearm with a large capacity magazine, under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) & cmt. n.2. Nevertheless, the court vacated the sentence because the written judgment included supervised-release restrictions that the district judge had not orally prounounced at the sentencing hearing.

In United States v. De Bruhl-Daniels, —- F.4th —-, No. 22-20650 (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 2024), the Fifth Circuit vacated De Bruhl’s conviction for obstruction under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), but it affirmed her conviction and sentencing enhancement for providing false statements in a way that “involve[d]” international terrorism, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).