United States v. Koan No. 25-10850
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10850-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nJsgIGnROk
Before SMITH, HAYNES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
VACATED and REMANDED. (October 2, 2026).
Judge HAYNES dissented.
A panel majority of the Fifth Circuit vacates a 60-year sentence for production of child pornography because the District Court mistakenly believed it lacked authority to adjust the sentence for 39 months and 28 days already served on a related Texas conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. The majority holds that defense counsel preserved the issue by requesting an adjustment, even without expressly citing U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b), and distinguishes the Bureau of Prisons’ exclusive authority to award custody credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) from the sentencing Court’s authority to adjust a sentence under § 5G1.3(b). Ordering the Federal sentence to run concurrently with the remaining state sentence did not excuse the failure to consider an adjustment for state imprisonment already served. Although the Guidelines are advisory and the District Court could impose the same sentence on remand, the majority emphasizes: “Although the district court can grant the same sentence on remand, she must consider all of § 5G1.3(b) when doing so.” A dissenting Judge concludes that the objection was unpreserved, plain-error review was not satisfied, and resentencing was unnecessary because the District Court likely will impose the same sentence.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. (Jane J. Boyle)
Attorney for the Appellant – Kevin Joel Page, Dallas, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Lauren Murphree, Lubbock, TX
United States v. Serna No. 25-40109
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-40109-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARklpYR3W5M
Before SMITH, HAYNES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
AFFIRMED. (October 1, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms Luis Andres Serna’s conviction for sexual exploitation of a child under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), holding that the Government need not prove that a defendant knew the victim was a minor, even when the production was noncommercial. While detained on separate Federal charges, Serna directed a sixteen-year-old girl, with whom he had maintained a physical relationship since she was fourteen, to perform sexually explicit acts during video calls. After the District Court denied his requested knowledge-of-age instruction, Serna pleaded guilty while reserving his right to appeal that ruling. The Fifth Circuit rejects his argument because the statutory text contains no knowledge-of-age requirement, the ordinary presumption favoring scienter does not apply in this setting involving personal encounters with an underage victim, and Congress’s removal of the statute’s original profit limitation confirms that commercial and noncommercial producers are treated alike. The Court also holds that Serna forfeited his inadequately briefed constitutional arguments and his request for a mistake-of-age defense, while independently declining to recognize that defense. The Court concludes: “In the end, § 2251(a)’s text is clear—a commercial or non-commercial producer need not have knowledge that the victim is a minor.”
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (Diana Saldana)
Attorney for the Appellant – Silverio A. Martinez, Jr., Laredo, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Renata Ann Gowie, Houston, TX
United States v. Chaney No. 23-30454
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30454-CR1.pdf
(September 18, 2026 USCA5 Opinion on Remand from SCOTUS).
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30454-CR0.pdf
(November 8, 2024 Panel Opinion).
ON REMAND FROM
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
DISMISSED. (September 18, 2026).
Devin Chaney pleaded guilty of Hobbs Act Robbery and Armed Bank Robbery and waived his right to appeal except to challenge a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum or to claim ineffective assistance of counsel, but he later appealed his designation as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. After the Fifth Circuit initially enforced the waiver, United States v. Chaney, 120 F.4th 1300, 1303 (5th Cir. 2024), the Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of Hunter v. United States (Hunter I), 146 S. Ct. 1702 (2026), which recognized that an appeal waiver is unenforceable when it would leave in place “the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.” Id. at 1708. On remand, Chaney argued that his 2019 Louisiana drug conviction was not a qualifying predicate because Louisiana law included hemp within its definition of marijuana while Federal law did not, and he further asserted that the District Court had summarily rejected his objection. The Fifth Circuit holds that neither contention satisfied Hunter I’s “high bar” for “extreme cases” because there was no controlling precedent establishing that the career-offender designation was erroneous, the supporting decisions were unpublished and issued after Chaney’s sentencing, and any Guidelines error was, at most, an ordinary sentencing mistake. The Court also finds no fundamental procedural deficiency because Chaney had an opportunity to present his objection. Concluding that “[r]un-of-the-mill or ‘standard-fare’ errors in sentencing don’t make the cut” and that “this case isn’t even close,” the Court enforces Chaney’s appeal waiver and dismisses the appeal.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. (Greg Gerard Guidry)
Attorney for Appellant – Samantha Jean Kuhn, New Orleans, LA
Attorney for Appellee – Christine Marie Calogero, New Orleans, LA
United States v. Cordova No. 24-50564
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-50564-CR1.pdf
(September 14, 2026 Order Announcing Rehearing En Banc).
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-50564-CR0.pdf
(May 20, 2026 Panel Opinion).
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before ELROD, Chief Judge, JONES, SMITH, STEWART, RICHMAN, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES, HIGGINSON, WILLETT, HO, DUNCAN, ENGELHARDT, OLDHAM, WILSON, DOUGLAS, and RAMIREZ, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
GRANTED. (September 14, 2026).
In an earlier opinion, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Peter Villa Cordova who pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after prior felony convictions for drug possession and evading arrest with a vehicle, holding under United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024), and United States v. Simpson, 152 F.4th 611 (5th Cir. 2025), that vehicular evasion of arrest establishes the defendant as a credible threat to physical safety, defeating his as-applied Second Amendment challenge. One Judge concurred in the judgment to highlight that § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession, even for nonviolent offenders never imprisoned, raises serious constitutional questions left open by United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), but Cordova failed to challenge lifetime disarmament directly. Another Judge also concurred but wrote at length urging to overrule Diaz as “historically bankrupt” and to replace it with a dangerousness standard rooted in English and American historical tradition. He ultimately concluded that Cordova’s vehicular-evasion conviction independently established dangerousness sufficient to sustain his disarmament. Cordova filed a petition for rehearing en banc. A member of the Court requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc, and a majority of the Circuit Judges in regular active service and not disqualified voted in favor. Accordingly, the Court announces that the case shall be reheard by the Court en banc. Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 41.3, the Court vacates its earlier panel opinion.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Walter David Counts III)
Attorney for the Appellant – Lane Andrew Haygood, New York, NY
Attorney for the Appellee – Zachary Carl Richter, Austin, TX
United States v. Nyandoro No. 23-10579
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-10579-CR2.pdf
(September 4, 2026 USCA5 Panel on Remand from SCOTUS).
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-10579-CR1.pdf
(August 4, 2025 USCA5 Panel Opinion).
ON REMAND FROM
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before STEWART, CLEMENT, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (September 4, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit, on remand from the Supreme Court, again affirms Kenleone Joe Nyandoro’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Nyandoro pleaded guilty, waived his appellate rights, and entered a rehabilitation program under an agreement requiring dismissal of the charge upon successful completion, but he was removed from the program after fleeing a traffic stop at more than 100 miles per hour. Following Hunter v. United States (Hunter I), 146 S. Ct. 1702 (2026), which recognized a narrow miscarriage-of-justice exception to sentencing appeal waivers, the Fifth Circuit assumes without deciding that the exception also applies to conviction appeals but held that Nyandoro did not satisfy its “high bar.” His claims that § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment, was unconstitutionally vague, and exceeded Congress’s commerce power did not establish an error that was “obvious—not one a judge could reasonably make.” In particular, evidence that Nyandoro used marijuana daily and that marijuana was smelled in his bedroom on the day of the firearm possession made his Second Amendment challenge at least reasonably debatable in light of precedent recognizing that § 922(g)(3) may constitutionally apply to presently intoxicated persons. And, as the Court states, “And debatable is not obvious.” The Court also declines to revisit its earlier ruling that the District Court properly denied withdrawal of the guilty plea because that issue fell outside the Supreme Court’s remand and the District Court had reasonably applied the relevant factors. Accordingly, because Nyandoro’s constitutional arguments were debatable rather than obvious, the Court enforces his appeal waiver and affirms the District Court’s judgment.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. (Reed Charles O’Connor)
Attorney for the Appellant – Maria Gabriela Vega, Dallas, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Jonathan Glen Bradshaw, Dallas, TX
United States v. Tampico No. 24-20462
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-20462-CR0.pdf
Before CLEMENT, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (September 1, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms an order modifying Jonathan M. Tampico’s supervised release to require home detention until he successfully completed Court-ordered sex-offender treatment and requiring him to pay $1,992.86 in accrued interest on his $5,000 fine at $200 per month. The Court rejects Tampico’s argument that home detention produced an illegal sentence because he previously had received the statutory maximum prison term, distinguishing United States v. Ferguson, 369 F.3d 847, 850 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), and United States v. Hall, 64 F.4th 1200, 1203 (11th Cir. 2023), because those cases involved revocation imprisonment combined with home detention, whereas Tampico’s conditions were modified under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) during supervised release “to address contemporary concerns, not Tampico’s pre-1999 criminal conduct.” The Court declines to infer “such a significant, and easily stated, restriction on the district court’s otherwise broad supervisory discretion” and concludes that the modification did not impose an illegal sentence. It also holds that interest was statutorily required because the sentencing Court had never found Tampico unable to pay or waived the obligation, and the Bureau of Prisons’ erroneous representation that his balance was zero did not estop the Government from collecting it.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (Ewing Werlein, Jr.)
Attorney for the Appellant – Gregory Don Sherwood, Austin, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Amy Howell Alaniz, Houston, TX
Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Juvenile No. 24-60348
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60348-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2CxiJlM8Cc
Before KING, SMITH, and RAMIREZ, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (August 28, 2026).
Judge KING concurred.
The Fifth Circuit affirms the juvenile’s adjudication for possessing and transferring Glock switches in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2). The Court holds that the Government’s certification under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 properly established federal jurisdiction because the Mississippi statutes in effect at the time did not prohibit the charged conduct: Section 97-37-14 regulated handguns, not Glock switches, and Section 97-37-1 required concealment, which was neither charged nor an element of the Federal offenses. Addressing the Second Amendment claim, the Court concludes that Glock switches “make a firearm significantly more effective by allowing faster follow-up shots” and therefore “are undeniably Second Amendment ‘Arms.’” Nevertheless, the constitutional challenge failed because binding Circuit precedent holds that dangerous and unusual weapons are not protected under Bruen’s first step. United States v. Wilson, 164 F.4th 380 (5th Cir. 2026), petition for cert. filed (July 29, 2026) (No. 26-5198). The Court also holds that the juvenile had waived his argument that ATF exceeded its authority by classifying Glock switches as machineguns because his appeal waiver preserved only jurisdictional issues and his Second Amendment challenge. One Judge concurs in the judgment but reasons that the juvenile’s purported as-applied challenge was effectively facial and should have been rejected directly under Wilson. Alternatively, she concludes that the challenge failed because § 922(o) has at least some constitutional applications.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Attorney for the Appellant – Victoria McIntrye, Gulfport, MS
Attorney for the Appellee – Jonathan Buckner, Gulfport, MS
United States v. West No. 25-11227
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-11227-CR0.pdf
PUBLISHED ORDER
Before SOUTHWICK, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
Motion to Dismiss CARRIED with the case. (August 27, 2026).
Judge HIGGINSON concurred.
Judge OLDHAM dissented.
The Fifth Circuit carries with the case the Government’s opposed motion to dismiss Kyle Lamar West’s appeal based on his appeal waiver and granted the Government thirty days after any denial of that motion to file its appellee’s brief, thereby postponing a decision until after full briefing. A concurring Judge reiterates his view that parties cannot contract away the Court’s jurisdiction and observing that the Supreme Court has since confirmed that an appeal waiver is unenforceable when enforcement would cause a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. West, 138 F.4th 357, 358–62 (5th Cir. 2025) (Higginson, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc); Hunter v. United States, 146 S. Ct. 1702, 1708 (2026) (“[A]n agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice.”). He also notes that, following a limited remand and a restitution hearing applying Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014), the District Court increased restitution to the child victim from $6,000 to $372,200.00, and he concludes that the intervening Hunter decision and the amended restitution award warranted full adversarial consideration. A dissenting Judge maintains that the Court should enforce West’s appeal waiver, dismiss what he regarded as a frivolous second appeal, and provide the Government the finality for which it bargained in the plea agreement. See United States v. West, 138 F.4th 357, 361–62 (5th Cir. 2025) (Oldham, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc).
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. (James Wesley Hendrix)
Attorney for the Appellant – Taylor Wills Edwards Brown, Fort Worth, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Amber Michelle Grand, Dallas, TX
United States v. Padilla No. 25-30500
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30500-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sYZ0H2c7kE
Before KING, SMITH, and RAMIREZ, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
AFFIRMED. (September 1, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms a $3,500 restitution award for future psychological treatment imposed on Luis Enrique Padilla, a former police chief who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor deprivation of rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242 after using unreasonable force against a handcuffed, nonresisting victim. Padilla argued that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”) did not apply because his misdemeanor offense was not a crime of violence, but, because he had not preserved the issue, the Court reviews for plain error and holds that he failed to demonstrate that the alleged error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, particularly because the District Court could have awarded discretionary restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(1)(A). The Court distinguishes United States v. Hankton, 51 F.4th 578 (5th Cir. 2022), and concludes that statutory noncompliance alone does not automatically warrant plain-error relief. It also rejected Padilla’s challenge to restitution for future treatment because the MVRA permits recovery for “future psychological care,” United States v. Serrata, 679 F. App’x 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished), and the District Court reasonably credited the psychologist’s testimony that Padilla’s conduct caused the victim’s PTSD and that the victim needed and wanted treatment.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. (David Cleveland Joseph)
Attorney for the Appellant – Aaron A. Adams, Lafayette, LA
Attorney for the Appellee – Katherine McCallister, Washington, DC
United States v. Palencia-Berrum No. 25-50383
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50383-CR0.pdf
Before KING, HIGGINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
VACATED and REMANDED. (August 26, 2026).
Judge DUNCAN dissented.
A panel majority of the Fifth Circuit vacates Alexander Palencia-Berrum’s 46-month sentence for illegal reentry and remanded for resentencing because the District Court committed plain procedural error by relying on clearly erroneous facts. During a six-minute hearing, the District Court repeatedly emphasized a dismissed assault charge and incorrectly stated that Palencia-Berrum had bitten his wife, although neither the presentence report nor any other record evidence mentioned biting or direct physical contact. The District Court also misstated the date of his prior illegal-reentry offense. Applying Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009), the majority holds that the errors were clear, affected Palencia-Berrum’s substantial rights because the mistaken account played a central role in the decision to impose a sentence at the top of the Guidelines range, and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. A dissenting Judge reasons that the record did not establish that the unsupported biting allegation was central to the sentence and that the District Court had ample valid grounds, including Palencia-Berrum’s criminal history and the remaining circumstances of the alleged assault, to impose a top-of-Guidelines sentence.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Leon Schydlower)
Attorney for the Appellant – Mary Stillinger, El Paso, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Margaret Feuille Leachman, San Antonio, TX
United States v. Mitchell No. 25-30438
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30438-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja4m37Nn54I
Before DUNCAN, OLDHAM, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (August 26, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms Maurice Mitchell’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm after police found a loaded revolver in a bag attached to his bicycle following his flight from officers. The Court rejects Mitchell’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge, holding that his Louisiana felony conviction for attempting to disarm a peace officer was functionally equivalent to robbery and therefore supported his disarmament under the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, notwithstanding that his prior simple drug-possession convictions could not serve as constitutional predicates under United States v. Hembree, 165 F.4th 909, 915–18 (5th Cir. 2026). The Court also holds that the evidence reasonably supported the District Court’s flight instruction because Mitchell fled from officers and abandoned the bicycle and attached bag, and it rejects his sufficiency challenge under the “manifest miscarriage of justice” standard because those circumstances, together with evidence that Mitchell owned and regularly rode the bicycle, permitted the jury reasonably to infer that he possessed the firearm. The Court therefore affirms Mitchell’s conviction and 36-month sentence.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. (Terry A. Doughty)
Attorney for the Appellant – Dustin Charles Talbot, Lafayette, LA
Attorney for the Appellee – Wajdi C. Mallat, Washington, DC
United States v. Augillard No. 25-30192
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30192-CR0.pdf
(August 18, 2026 Order Denying Rehearing En Banc).
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/25/25-30192.0.pdf
(April 28, 2026 Unpublished Opinion).
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before CLEMENT, DOUGLAS, and RAMIREZ, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
DENIED. (August 18, 2026).
Judge OLDHAM concurred in the denial of rehearing en banc.
Chief Judge ELROD, joined by Judge HIGGINSON, dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc.
In United States v. Augillard, No. 25-30192 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2026) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit largely affirmed Julius Augillard’s 70-month sentence for two felon-in-possession convictions, holding that his prior Louisiana cocaine conviction qualified as a controlled-substance offense because, despite a facial mismatch involving Ioflupane, he identified no actual Louisiana prosecution establishing the required “realistic probability” of broader application. The Court also upheld the firearm-in-connection-with-another-felony enhancement, rejected his Second Amendment challenge as foreclosed, but remanded to conform a written supervised-release condition to the narrower oral pronouncement. Aguillard filed a petition for en banc rehearing. Treating the petition for panel rehearing, the Fifth Circuit denies panel rehearing. The Fifth Circuit denies panel and en banc rehearing by a 13–4 vote. One Judge concurs. He maintains that Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) and United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 853 F.3d 218 (5th Cir. 2017) (en banc), require an actual state prosecution even when a statute appears facially overbroad. Two Judges dissent, explaining that United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022), makes the actual-case requirement inapplicable when the statutory text itself establishes overbreadth and emphasized that the Fifth Circuit stands alone against the other ten regional Circuits on that issue.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. (Carl J. Barbier)
Attorney for the Appellant – Samantha Jean Kuhn, New Orleans, LA
Attorney for the Appellee – Patrick Stevens Barr, New Orleans, LA
United States v. London No. 25-20102
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20102-CR0.pdf
ON REMAND FROM
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before SMITH, HAYNES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
DISMISSED. (August 21, 2026).
Davantae London waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence under a plea agreement arising from his armed robberies of several Houston-area Wal-Mart stores, but the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s initial dismissal of his appeal and remanded for reconsideration following Hunter v. United States, 146 S. Ct. 1702 (2026). See London v. United States, No. 25-6850, 2026 WL 1854988 (U.S. June 29, 2026). On remand, London argued that enforcing the waiver would cause a miscarriage of justice because the District Court allegedly violated U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 by ordering his Federal sentence to run consecutively to his state sentence. Applying Hunter, the Fifth Circuit holds that London’s ordinary challenge to the District Court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines did not constitute the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute because “[s]uch standard-fare errors in misapplying sentencing law cannot cancel an appeal waiver,” even if an error occurred. Id. at 1713. The Court therefore enforces London’s appeal waiver and dismisses the appeal. See United States v. Hunter, No. 24-20211, 2026 WL 2185925, at *7 (5th Cir. July 29, 2026) (doing the same thing).
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (Charles Robert Eskridge III)
Attorney for the Appellant – John Dennis Hester, Houston, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Renata Ann Gowie, Houston, TX
United States v. Enclade No. 24-30684
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-30684-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s_yd1QXPG0
Before RICHMAN, HIGGINSON, and DOUGLAS, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (August 18, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms the convictions and sentences of Travis Enclade and Terence Wilson arising from a New Orleans narcotics-trafficking investigation. Both defendants were convicted of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, fentanyl, and heroin. Wilson was additionally convicted of possessing the drugs with intent to distribute and possessing firearms as a convicted felon, while Enclade was convicted of possessing firearms as a convicted felon. The Court holds that surveillance footage, the defendants’ shared access to a stash house, a recorded jailhouse call concerning narcotics hidden in a cabinet, and the recovery of substantial quantities of drugs, distribution equipment, and firearms sufficiently supported the convictions. Although the Court concludes that Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office narcotics agent Steven Brens improperly interpreted the word “ray” as referring to narcotics and that the prosecutor improperly argued that law enforcement “knew who done it,” neither error affected the defendants’ substantial rights given the strength of the independent evidence. The Court rejects the remaining evidentiary, prosecutorial-misconduct, jury-instruction, continuance, cumulative-error, sentencing, Second Amendment, and Commerce Clause challenges and affirmed the judgments in full.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. (Brandon Scott Long)
Attorney for the Appellant – Jonathan Percy Lemann, New Orleans, LA
Attorney for the Appellee – Patrick Stevens Barr, New Orleans, LA
United States v. Torres-Galaviz No. 25-51052
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-51052-CR0.pdf
PUBLISHED ORDER
Before SMITH, STEWART, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
GRANTED in part; DENIED in part. (August 13, 2026).
Judge OLDHAM dissented.
The Fifth Circuit grants the Government’s unopposed motion to vacate two conditions of Jose Torres-Galaviz’s supervised release and affirmed his sentence as modified, rendering moot the Government’s alternative request for additional briefing time. One Judge dissents. He reiterates his view that the Court’s practice of summarily vacating supervised-release conditions and entering judgment for a defendant is procedurally flawed, particularly when the asserted plain error results from an intervening Fifth Circuit decision that did not exist when the District Court imposed the sentence.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Walter David Counts III)
Attorney for the Appellant – Case J. Darwin, San Antonio, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Zachary Carl Richter, Austin, TX
United States v. Morgan No. 26-30018
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/26/26-30018-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU4_33CWrlg
Before STEWART, GRAVES, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (August 14, 2026).
Judge GRAVES concurred in the judgment only.
The Fifth Circuit affirms the revocation of Terrance Morgan’s supervised release and his sentence of eight months’ imprisonment followed by twenty-four months of supervised release. Morgan admitted multiple violations, including positive drug tests, failure to attend treatment, failure to report to Probation, failure to provide proof of employment, and state convictions for battery upon a dating partner and simple battery. The Court holds that the District Court adequately considered and rejected the statutory substance-abuse-treatment exception to mandatory revocation, notwithstanding Morgan’s successful completion of a thirty-day inpatient program. The Court reasons that the implicit consideration of the exception was sufficient and the District Court reasonably gave greater weight to Morgan’s sustained pattern of violations and escalating conduct. Although the District Court mistakenly applied the 2024 Sentencing Guidelines instead of the 2025 Guidelines in effect at the time of the hearing, the error was harmless because the editions did not materially differ in any respect affecting Morgan’s case. The Court also finds no abuse of discretion in denying Morgan’s request for a continuance because he failed to demonstrate specific prejudice, particularly where revocation was mandatory once the District Court determined that the treatment exception did not apply.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. (Eldon E. Fallon)
Attorney for the Appellant – Samantha Jean Kuhn, New Orleans, LA
Attorney for the Appellee – Patrick Stevens Barr, New Orleans, LA
United States v. Brann No. 24-50378
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-50378-CR0.pdf
Before RICHMAN, HIGGINSON, and DOUGLAS, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED. (August 12, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms a $100,000 restitution award against Gerald Talman Brann, who pleaded guilty to sexually exploiting his stepdaughter under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), but remands to correct clerical errors in the judgment. Although Brann’s plea agreement waived his right to appeal and required at least $100,000 in restitution for the victim’s future counseling costs, he argued that the award exceeded the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 because the record lacked evidence quantifying her losses. Relying on Hunter v. United States, 146 S.Ct. 1702 (2026), and United States v. Kim, 988 F.3d 803 (5th Cir. 2021), the Court holds that the appeal waiver did not bar a claim that restitution exceeded the statutory maximum. Applying de novo review, the Court nevertheless rejects the claim because Brann’s plea agreement, his sentencing statements, the presentence report, and the victim-impact evidence established that his conduct proximately caused the victim’s continuing need for therapy, counseling, treatment, and tutoring and supported the agreed-upon amount. Distinguishing Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014), the Court emphasizes that Brann was not merely a possessor of illicit images but directly abused the victim, produced the images, and distributed them, making causation readily apparent. It further concludes that $100,000 likely represented only the floor of the victim’s reasonably projected losses. The Court enforces Brann’s appeal waiver against any separate abuse-of-discretion challenge and remands solely to correct the judgment’s erroneous identification of his offense as distribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), rather than sexual exploitation of a child under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Jason Kenneth Pulliam)
Attorney for the Appellant – Susannah Elizabeth Prucka, Midland, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Kristy Karen Callahan, San Antonio, TX
United States v. Mendoza No. 25-50072
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50072-CR0.pdf
Before SOUTHWICK, GRAVES, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part. (August 7, 2026).
Judge GRAVES concurred in part and dissented in part.
The Fifth Circuit affirms Ignacio Sanchez Mendoza III’s enhanced fifteen-year sentence for receiving child pornography, holding that his prior Texas conviction qualified under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1) because the phrase “relating to” has a broad meaning and does not require an element-for-element match between the state and federal offenses. See United States v. Taylor, No. 24-20303, 2025 WL 2206975 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2025). Reviewing Mendoza’s unpreserved restitution challenges for plain error, the court found that the district court incorrectly relied on 18 U.S.C. § 3663A instead of § 2259 but concluded that the mistake did not affect Mendoza’s substantial rights. Applying the proximate-cause requirements of Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434, 448, 458–60 (2014), the court affirmed the restitution awards for eleven victims because their victim-impact statements and attorneys’ letters sufficiently documented their losses, but it vacated the awards for three other victims because the record did not adequately connect the requested amounts to their losses. The court remanded those three awards for further proceedings, while Judge Graves dissented in part and would have vacated the entire restitution award because the supporting materials were not filed in the District Court and were added to the record only on appeal.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Samuel Fred Biery, Jr.)
Attorney for the Appellant – Bradford W. Bogan, San Antonio, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Steven E. Seward, San Antonio, TX
United States v. Williams No. 25-10322
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10322-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBTrq42xUpM
Before KING, HIGGINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (August 7, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms Paul Anthony Williams’s 77-month sentence for possessing a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Court holds that Williams’s prior conviction under California Penal Code § 211 categorically qualified as robbery under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2’s enumerated-offense clause because the Guidelines’ robbery definition contains no express mens rea requirement. Therefore, the District Court properly applied the enhanced base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). The Court also granted Williams’s motion to supplement the appellate record but found no plain error in assigning two criminal history points for his allegedly uncounseled California drug conviction because the incomplete record did not clearly establish a Sixth Amendment violation and the conviction carried a presumption of constitutional regularity. See United States v. Guerrero-Robledo, 565 F.3d 940, 943–45 (5th Cir. 2009). Finally, the Court rejects Williams’s constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) as foreclosed by Circuit precedent and affirmed the District Court’s judgment in all respects.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. (Reed Charles O’Connor)
Attorney for the Appellant – Loui Itoh, Fort Worth, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Amy Jeannine Mitchell, Dallas, TX
United States v. Deluna No. 25-20036
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20036-CR0.pdf
Before SOUTHWICK and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
After oral argument in this case, Judge HO entered a recusal. This appeal was decided by a quorum per 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
AFFIRMED. (August 6, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms Karina Deluna’s convictions for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and seven counts of making false statements on ATF Form 4473 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), arising from a straw-purchasing scheme in which she bought firearms for others (including guns later recovered in Mexico) for a commission, and affirmed her within-Guidelines 87-month sentence. Assuming without deciding that de novo review applied to voluntariness, the Court holds Deluna’s second, unwarned interview outside her home voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. The Court reasons that the absence of Miranda warnings and counsel bore only on the coercive setting and that the agents’ truthful observation that her story was “implicating [her] mother” was not coercive where the relative was plausibly tied to the crime. Although the third interview, which featured threats to charge her, a warning that a child-welfare agency would take her children, and a statement that she was “detained,” may have been coercive, the Court declines to decide the question because admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court stresses that the confession was cumulative of two earlier confessions (including an unchallenged, forfeited written statement), her co-defendant’s testimony, and extensive phone evidence. Further, the untainted proof was overwhelming and the jury was instructed on voluntariness. The Court further finds no abuse of discretion in displaying the Barrett .50 caliber rifle, which was relevant to the charged counts and to forfeiture, or in admitting twelve phone photographs of uncharged firearms probative of knowledge and intent and held Deluna’s substantive-reasonableness arguments all foreclosed by Circuit precedent, leaving the presumption of reasonableness unrebutted.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (George C. Hanks, Jr.)
Attorney for the Appellant – Christopher Michael Choate, Houston, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Audrey Lynn Maness, Houston, TX
United States v. Hunter No. 24-20211 Summary Calendar
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-20211-CR0.pdf
(July 29, 2026 USCA5 Panel Opinion on Remand from SCOTUS).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1063new_l5gm.pdf
(June 18, 2026 SCOTUS Opinion).
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/24/24-20211.0.pdf
(December 6, 2024 USCA5 Unpublished Panel Opinion).
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
DISMISSED. (July 29, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit, on remand from the Supreme Court, dismisses Munson P. Hunter, III’s appeal of a special “Medication Condition” imposed as part of his supervised release for wire fraud, holding that enforcing his plea agreement’s appeal waiver would not result in a “miscarriage of justice” under the new standard the Supreme Court announced in Hunter v. United States, 146 S. Ct. 1702 (2026). Hunter had pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting wire fraud and waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence except for ineffective-assistance claims, but he nonetheless challenged a condition requiring him to take mental health medication prescribed by his treating physician, arguing it amounted to both blatant constitutional error and obvious statutory error under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Applying the Supreme Court’s newly articulated framework, under which a waiver is unenforceable only for egregious, obvious errors such as a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum, a blatant constitutional violation, or a sentencing process lacking basic procedural safeguards, the Fifth Circuit finds that the Medication Condition was well-supported by Hunter’s documented mental health history. The Court also finds that it was modifiable through the probation office or the Court, was contingent on a physician’s prescription, and mirrored a condition commonly used nationwide, making it neither “blatant” nor “obvious” error. Because no such egregious error was present, the Court holds Hunter’s appeal waiver remained enforceable, and thus dismisses the appeal.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (Sim T. Lake III)
Attorney for the Appellant – Brent Evan Newton, Gaithersburg, MD
Attorney for the Appellee – Amy Howell Alaniz, Houston, TX
United States v. Michael Fullerton No. 24-50800 cons. w/ United States v. Tiffany Fullerton No. 24-50829
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-50800-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMfqWgDQavE
Before KING, HIGGINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (July 21, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms the sentences of Michael and Tiffany Fullerton for orchestrating a scheme that fraudulently obtained over $3,000,000 in COVID-era Paycheck Protection Program funds through fabricated business records, stolen identities, and shell entities, followed by extensive money laundering through layered bank transactions. The Court rejects Michael’s challenges to his sentencing enhancements for sophisticated means, sophisticated laundering, an aggravating leadership role, and obstruction of justice by perjury, finding the District Court’s factual findings plausible and not clearly erroneous. The Court likewise rejects Tiffany’s challenges to the denial of her motion for a new trial, her enhancement for suborning Michael’s perjury, and the calculation of her intended-loss amount, holding that none of her arguments met the applicable abuse-of-discretion, clear-error, or plain-error standards. Accordingly, the Court affirms both sentences and the denial of the new-trial motion but remands for the ministerial correction of a clerical error in Tiffany’s judgment. Tiffany’s written judgment stated she was convicted of (1) conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud and (2) money laundering. Tiffany, however, was acquitted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Thus, the judgment should not have stated she was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. As such, it was necessary for the Court to remand to the District Court for correction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See United States v. Cooper, 979 F.3d 1084, 1088–89 (5th Cir. 2020).
On Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Robert L. Pitman)
Attorney for the Appellant – Susannah Elizabeth Prucka, Midland, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Alan M. Buie, Austin, TX
United States v. Palomares No. 25-40026
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-40026-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0vJH3I6ico
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
REVERSED and REMANDED. (July 21, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit reverses a District Court order dismissing a felon-in-possession charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) that had been predicated on Concepcion Palomares’s prior conviction for transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Court holds that alien smuggling is an “inherently dangerous felony” that the Government may constitutionally use to disarm a convicted offender consistent with the Second Amendment. Applying the historical-tradition framework from N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and its own precedent in United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024), the Court, in reliance on United States v. Kimble, 142 F.4th 308 (5th Cir. 2025) (which upheld disarmament of drug traffickers) reasoned that alien smuggling, like drug trafficking, is “notoriously linked to violence” given cartel involvement, exploitation of migrants, and dangerous transport methods. Moreover, the Court finds this danger is confirmed by sentencing enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(1)–(9). Accordingly, it concludes that Congress’s decision to disarm convicted alien traffickers via § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment. Hence, the Court reverses the judgment of the District Court and remands for further proceedings.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (John A. Kazen)
Attorney for the Appellant – Kristian Amundsen, Houston, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Evan Gray Howze, Houston, TX
United States v. Squire No. 25-30324
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30324-CR1.pdf
(July 20, 2026 Order Granting Rehearing En Banc).
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before ELROD, Chief Judge, JONES, SMITH, STEWART, RICHMAN, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES, HIGGINSON, WILLETT, HO, DUNCAN, ENGELHARDT, OLDHAM, WILSON, DOUGLAS, and RAMIREZ, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
GRANTED.
Judge HIGGINSON dissented from the order granting rehearing en banc.
This appeal presented a novel question about whether the Second Amendment protects a convicted drug trafficker from being dispossessed of a firearm inside his home based on our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Curtis Squire was indicted for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Squire moved to dismiss the indictment, raising several constitutional challenges, including that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him—regardless of his felon status—because it is inconsistent with our history and tradition under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), which he said supports, rather than proscribes, his right to possess a firearm inside his home. The District Court denied his motion, and Squire, without the benefit of a plea agreement and without waiving his right to appeal, pleaded guilty and was sentenced. He appealed. Finding that the nation’s historical tradition supports disarming drug traffickers based on their dangerousness, a panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. The Court concluded that the statute was constitutional as applied to a convicted drug trafficker who possessed a firearm in his home because, under Bruen’s text and history framework, the Second Amendment’s protection of home self defense coexists with a parallel historical tradition of categorically disarming persons deemed dangerous. The Court reasoned that founding era and later laws disarming political, religious, and other groups viewed as threats provided sufficiently “relevantly similar” analogues to support Congress’s judgment that drug traffickers, whose crimes involve the “intrinsic violence of the drug trade,” may be dispossessed of firearms regardless of location. Squire filed a petition seeking rehearing en banc. The Court, over a dissent, grants rehearing en banc, and withdraws the prior panel opinion. The lone dissenter contends that the majority is improperly reframing Squire’s narrow as-applied Second Amendment claim into a sweeping facial Commerce Clause challenge to § 922(g)(1), contrary to settled precedent, all of which upheld § 922(g)’s constitutionality based on its explicit interstate commerce nexus.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. (Wendy Baldwin Vitter)
Attorney for the Appellant – Steven Edward Spires, New Orleans, LA
Attorney for the Appellee – Patrick Stevens Barr, New Orleans, LA
United States v. Kirkwood No. 25-50171
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50171-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzl54AyoIMI
Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
VACATED. (July 17, 2026).
Judge HAYNES dissented.
The Fifth Circuit vacates a District Court’s restitution award because neither of its two stated grounds was authorized under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 8 U.S.C. § 3663A. James Kirkwood pleaded guilty to robbing a Dollar Tree cashier who suffered psychological harm but no physical injury. The District Court ordered Kirkwood to pay restitution to the store clerk for psychological harm he caused when committing the robbery. The District Court provided two separate reasons for the order of restitution: mental anguish and lost income. In defending the award on the lost-income ground, the Government argued that “bodily injury” under the statute encompasses solely mental harms. The Fifth Circuit first holds that Kirkwood’s appeal waiver did not bar his challenge because a restitution order lacking statutory authorization effectively exceeds the statutory maximum. United States v. Kim, 988 F.3d 803, 811 (5th Cir. 2021). The Court applies de novo review to the mental-anguish ruling since the District Court had raised and resolved that issue sua sponte. The Court applies plain-error review under United States v. Inman, 411 F.3d 591, 595 (5th Cir. 2005), to the lost-income ruling. On the merits, the Court finds no MVRA provision authorizing restitution for mental anguish alone. It separately holds that “bodily injury” under § 3663A(b)(2) unambiguously requires physical harm, consistent with Travelers Indem. Co. of R.I. v. Holloway, 17 F.3d 113, 115 (5th Cir. 1994), and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157, 169–70 (2014), expressly declining to follow the contrary Seventh Circuit approach in United States v. Breshers, 684 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 2012). One Judge dissents. She maintains that the lost-income error was not “plain” given the absence of on-point Fifth Circuit precedent and that Kirkwood’s remaining proximate-cause challenge was independently barred by his appeal waiver under United States v. Lucas, 134 F.4th 810, 817 (5th Cir. 2025) since the District Court performed some proximate-cause analysis.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Samuel Fred Biery, Jr.)
Attorney for the Appellant – Bradford W. Bogan, San Antonio, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Todd R. Keagle, San Antonio, TX
United States v. Allred No. 25-50204
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50204-CR0.pdf
Before SOUTHWICK, GRAVES, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (July 15, 2026).
Judge GRAVES concurred in the judgment.
The Fifth Circuit affirms Jeremy Scott Allred’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) for possessing a firearm after a 2004 Texas misdemeanor conviction for domestic assault, rejecting both his facial Commerce Clause challenge (foreclosed in substance by United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013)), and his as-applied Second Amendment challenge. Applying New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), the Court holds that § 922(g)(9) is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of disarming individuals who pose a credible threat of physical violence, drawing analogies to Founding-era surety and going-armed laws and to the class-based disarmament rationale of United States v. Kimble, 142 F.4th 308 (5th Cir. 2025). The Court further concludes that Allred’s conduct (intentionally swinging at his wife’s phone but recklessly striking her face) fell within the conduct that even Justice THOMAS’s dissent in Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. 686 (2016), acknowledged could constitutionally support disarmament, and it applied a categorical, felony-by-felony approach under United States v. Hembree, 165 F.4th 909 (5th Cir. 2026), joining every other Circuit to uphold § 922(g)(9). One Judge concurs only in the judgment. He agrees that Allred’s specific conviction warrants affirmance, but maintains that the majority’s categorical methodology conflicts with earlier Fifth Circuit precedent requiring individualized assessment of a defendant’s history in as-applied Second Amendment challenges.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Alia Moses)
Attorney for the Appellant – Bradford W. Bogan, San Antonio, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Zachary Carl Richter, Austin, TX
United States v. Theiler No. 24-40779
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-40779-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THBfzSj03lo
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (July 7, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) conspiracy convictions, under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b), of Susan Hertzberg, Matthew Theiler, David Kraus, and Thomas Hardaway, former executives and sales representatives of Boston Heart Diagnostics, Inc. Defendants used sham Management Service Organizations tied to Little River Health Care, a rural Texas critical-access hospital system, to funnel referral-based kickbacks to physicians and generate explosive, medically unjustified test-billing revenue. Applying the deferential sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard from United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc), and the AKS conspiracy framework set out in United States v. Shah, 95 F.4th 328 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 518 (2025), the Court holds that each defendant’s position of authority, healthcare experience, awareness of suspiciously high profits, proximity to the fraud, concealment conduct, and financial stake supported the jury’s rational inference of knowing participation. Further, the Court determines that neither Hertzberg nor Hardaway established withdrawal sufficient to trigger the statute of limitations. The Court further finds no reversible error in the District Court’s handling of two related jury notes concerning a holdout juror’s “moral compass,” concluding the District Court’s response did not constitute an improper Allen charge. Finally, the Court holds that the refusal of Hardaway’s requested good-faith instruction was not an abuse of discretion because the pattern knowledge-and-willfulness instructions already covered that defense. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirms all four convictions and corresponding sentences in full.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. (Jeremy Daniel Kernodle)
Attorney for the Appellant – Jeffrey J. Ansley, Dallas, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Stephan Edward Oestreicher, Jr., Plano, TX
United States v. Quintanilla No. 25-20230
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20230-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtS_XidIpAE
Before SMITH, WILLETT, and RAMIREZ, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (July 7, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms the District Court’s judgment sentencing Aurelio Quintanilla, Jr., to 240 months’ imprisonment, a lifetime of supervised release, and $17,500 in restitution following his guilty plea to transporting child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1), (b)(1). The Court holds that Quintanilla’s written plea agreement contained a knowing and voluntary appellate waiver that was not undermined by the District Court’s generic advisement, at the change-of-plea hearing, that a defendant may “under some circumstances” retain a right to appeal, and that this valid waiver therefore foreclosed his challenges to the length of imprisonment and the lifetime supervised-release term. On restitution, the Court rejects Quintanilla’s argument under Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014), finding that the sentencing Court had in fact completed the required proximate-cause and apportionment inquiry by considering victim-impact statements, restitution reports, and Quintanilla’s specific conduct of downloading the images before imposing a modest award, such that the waiver barred the restitution challenge. And, in any event, the Court finds that no plain error occurred and affirms the District Court’s judgment in full.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (David Hittner)
Attorney for the Appellant – Daniel DeMaria, Quincy, MA
Attorney for the Appellee -John A. Reed, Houston, TX
United States v. Kendall No. 24-40727
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-40727-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rWb-gqnxtg
Before SOUTHWICK, HIGGINSON, and DOUGLAS, Circuit Judges.
VACATED in part and DISMISSED in part. (July 2, 2026).
In this appeal, the Fifth Circuit addresses William Scott Kendall’s challenge to a supervised-release revocation judgment that was superseded by a second revocation during the appeal’s pendency. The Court holds that Kendall’s appeal is moot except as to the home detention condition and Standard Condition 13 (requiring compliance with probation officer instructions), which Kendall could show were “collateral consequences” traceable to the challenged judgment and redressable through a potential future 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion under Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998), and United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932 (2011). On the merits, the Court holds under the en banc analytical framework of United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020), that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing the home detention and standard conditions through an unreviewed sentencing appendix rather than clear oral pronouncement, violating Kendall’s due process right to notice and an opportunity to object at sentencing. Accordingly, the Court vacates in part the judgment of sentence, remands for the District Court to strike the two improperly pronounced conditions from the written judgment and dismisses the remainder of Kendall’s appeal as moot.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (Nelva Gonzales Ramos)
Attorney for the Appellant – Nelson Ebaugh, Houston, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Eileen K. Wilson, Houston, TX
United States v. Arrieta No. 25-50510
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50510-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GCtIeXZotY
Before SMITH, WILLETT, and RAMIREZ, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (June 29, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms a fifteen-month sentence imposed on Jhonaker Manuel Arrieta, a Venezuelan detainee who pleaded guilty to mutiny in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1792 after he and five other detainees at the El Paso Service Processing Center fashioned a rope from bed sheets, towels, and shirts, climbed onto an unrailed two-story canopy roof, defied commands for more than three and a half hours while threatening to jump. They were subdued only after the deployment of the El Paso Crisis Negotiation Team, the Special Response Team, and sublethal munitions, precipitating a six-hour facility-wide lockdown that suspended dining, visitation, and attorney-client access. Addressing for the first time the meaning of “major disruption to the operation of an institution” under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.3(a)(2), the Court applies ordinary-meaning principles drawn from United States v. Stanford, 883 F.3d 500, 511 (5th Cir. 2008), rejects the Arrieta’s characterization of the episode as a mere nonviolent “administrative disruption,” distinguished United States v. Kramer, 943 F.2d 1543 (11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam), draws support from United States v. Doyle, No. 95-5456, 1996 WL 85117 (4th Cir. Feb. 29, 1996) (per curiam) (unpublished), and holds that the District Court’s middle-tier finding was plausible on the record and therefore not clearly erroneous.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Kathleen Cardone)
Attorney for the Appellant – Mary Stillinger, El Paso, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – William Robert Payne, Austin, TX
United States v. Hemani No. 24-1234
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_new_6k47.pdf
(June 18, 2026 SCOTUS Opinion).
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/24/24-40137.0.pdf
(January 31, 2025 USCA5 Unpublished Panel Opinion).
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, SOTOMAYOR, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN, J., joined.
AFFIRMED. (June 18, 2026).
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, affirms the Fifth Circuit and held that the government’s prosecution of Ali Danial Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), based solely on his admitted use of marijuana “about every other day,” violated the Second Amendment as applied to him, because the Government failed to carry its burden under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), of showing that disarming “unlawful users” of controlled substances is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Court rejects the Government’s analogy to founding-era “habitual drunkard” laws (vagrancy, civil-commitment, and surety-of-good-behavior statutes), reasoning that those laws differed dramatically from § 922(g)(3) on every metric the Government invited the Court to consider: they targeted persons rendered practically incapacitated rather than mere regular users, served purposes unrelated to protecting the public from categorically dangerous individuals, and afforded pre-deprivation process that § 922(g)(3)’s automatic ban does not. Emphasizing the narrowness of its decision, the Court declines to address the disarmament of addicts, the presently intoxicated, or convicted felons. Justice Thomas concurs, Justice Jackson concurs (joined by Justice Sotomayor), and Justice Alito concurs in the judgment (joined by Justice Kagan).
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. (Amos L. Mazzant)
Attorney for the Appellant – Bradley Elliot Visosky, Plano, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Zachary L. Newland, Evergreen, CO
Hunter v. United States No. 24-1063
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1063new_l5gm.pdf
(June 18, 2026 SCOTUS Opinion).
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/24/24-20211.0.pdf
(December 6, 2024 USCA5 Unpublished Panel Opinion).
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO and BARRETT, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
VACATED and REMANDED. (June 18, 2026).
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Kagan, holds that an appeal waiver in a criminal plea agreement is unenforceable when enforcing it would result in a miscarriage of justice: that is, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. Petitioner Munson P. Hunter III pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud and knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. He nonetheless sought to appeal a supervised-release condition requiring him to take prescribed mental-health medication, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal under Circuit precedent recognizing only two narrow exceptions to waiver enforceability. The Supreme Court first rejects Hunter’s argument that the District Court’s erroneous statement at sentencing that he could appeal, coupled with the prosecutor’s silence, modified the agreement or forfeited the Government’s enforcement right, finding no mutual assent and noting that the proper time to assert enforcement is after a notice of appeal is filed. Rejecting both the Government’s position that knowing and voluntary waivers are always enforceable and the Fifth Circuit’s narrower rule, the Supreme Court grounds its holding in the judiciary’s pivotal institutional role in approving and implementing waivers and adopted the majority “miscarriage of justice” standard—a deliberately high bar reserved for obvious, egregious errors such as a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum, one infected with blatant constitutional error, or one imposed without some minimum of civilized procedure. Declining to apply the standard in the first instance, the Court vacates the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remands, with Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett filing concurrences and Justice Thomas dissenting on the ground that the right to appeal a sentence is a waivable statutory right and that the Court’s new exception lacks any textual or established common-law basis.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (Sim T. Lake III)
Attorney for the Appellant – Brent Evan Newton, Gaithersburg, MD
Attorney for the Appellee – Amy Howell Alaniz, Houston, TX
United States v. Baldemoro No. 24-20451 cons. w/ No. 25-20094
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-20451-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPndLnGXwFA
Before ELROD, Chief Judge, SMITH, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (June 16, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms two revocation sentences imposed on James Baldemoro, who, after pleading guilty in 2014 to possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2) and serving the statutory maximum ten-year term, had his supervised release revoked twice and was sentenced to six months’ reimprisonment each time.
On Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (Andrew S. Hanen)
Attorney for the Appellant – Evan Gray Howze, Houston, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – John Stewart Wade, Houston, TX
United States v. Comeaux No. 24-30307
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-30307-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU-ElhIzqcE
Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (June 18, 2026).
Judge CLEMENT, joined by Judge DUNCAN, concurred.
The Fifth Circuit affirms Brennan James Comeaux’s conviction for possessing an unregistered silencer in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), holding that although silencers qualify as “Arms” protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment because they make firearms safer and more effective for lawful self-defense.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. (David Cleveland Joseph)
Attorney for the Appellant – Dustin Charles Talbot, Lafayette, LA
Attorney for the Appellee – William A. Glaser, Washington, DC
United States v. James No. 25-50144
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50144-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKbjkSS2uw8
Before WILLETT, WILSON and DOUGLAS, Circuit Judges.
Conviction AFFIRMED, Sentence VACATED and REMANDED. (June 2, 2026).
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Alia Moses)
Attorney for the Appellant – Kristin Michelle Kimmelman, San Antonio, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Andrew C. Noll, Washington, DC
United States v. Akula No. 24-30315
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-30315-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvXPemt0YTw
Before SMITH, WIENER, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (June 8, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms Dr. Shiva Akula’s convictions on twenty-three counts of health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and his 240-month above-Guidelines sentence.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. (Lance M. Africk)
Attorney for the Appellant – Mark David Plaisance, Baton Rouge, LA
Attorney for the Appellee – Kevin G. Boitmann, New Orleans, LA
United States v. Squire No. 25-30324
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30324-CR0.pdf
Before CLEMENT, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (June 2, 2026).
This appeal presented a novel question about whether the Second Amendment protects a convicted drug trafficker from being dispossessed of a firearm inside his home based on our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. (Lance M. Africk)
Attorney for the Appellant – Mark David Plaisance, Baton Rouge, LA
Attorney for the Appellee – Kevin G. Boitmann, New Orleans, LA
United States v. Filline No. 25-50049
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50049-CRO.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKZdmgq8wg4
Before WILLETT, WILSON, and DOUGLAS, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (June 1, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms former Castroville police chief Christopher Filline’s conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud arising from a staged theft and burning of his wife’s 2007 Lincoln Navigator, which he then falsely reported stolen and used to support an insurance claim to Farmers Insurance Group.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Xavier Rodriguez)
Attorney for the Appellant – Kristin Michelle Kimmelman, San Antonio, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Daphne Danille Newaz, San Antonio, TX
United States v. Duran-Gonzalez No. 22-51055
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-51055-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjajHGowR-w
Before ELROD, Chief Judge, WILLETT, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (June 2, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms a 151 month, bottom of Guidelines sentence imposed after Heraclio Duran Gonzalez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana, enhanced under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) based on two prior Federal marijuana conspiracy convictions from the District of New Mexico.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Walter David Counts III)
Attorney for the Appellant – Christopher Michael McCaffrey, Dallas, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Laura Elena Durbin, San Antonio, TX
United States v. Cordova No. 24-50564
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-50564-CR0.pdf
Before HAYNES, HO, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
AFFIRMED. (May 20, 2026).
Judge HO concurred in the judgment.
Judge OLDHAM concurred in the judgment.
United States v. Kuyoro No. 25-20002
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20002-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcsgC4K7Jro
Before HAYNES, HIGGINSON, and HO, Circuit Judges.
REVERSED and REMANDED. (May 15, 2026).
United States v. Vacchino No. 25-50194
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50194-CR0.pdf
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
VACATED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED. (May 7, 2026).
Judge OLDHAM concurred in the judgment.
United States v. Lezama Ramirez No. 23-30721
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30721-CR1.pdf
(April 20, 2026 Substituted Panel Opinion).
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before SOUTHWICK, OLDHAM, and RAMIREZ, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
Panel Rehearing GRANTED; En Banc Rehearing DENIED. (September 5, 2025).
United States v. Conchas-Mancilla No. 25-40424
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-40424-CR0.pdf
Before RICHMAN, DUNCAN, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
AFFIRMED. (April 16, 2026).
United States v. Weaver No. 25-60269
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60269-CR0.pdf
Before JONES, DUNCAN, and DOUGLAS, Circuit Judges.
REVERSED and REMANDED. (April 2, 2026).
United States v. Williamson No. 25-10565 Summary Calendar
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10565-CR0.pdf
Before WIENER, WILLETT, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
AFFIRMED. (March 23, 2026).
Judge WILLETT, joined by Judge WILSON, concurred.
United States v. Grace No. 24-30730
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-30730-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGqRZtsAbCY
Before JONES, STEWART, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (March 27, 2026).
United States v. Mendoza No. 24-20550
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-20550-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsdj-I6TLUw&t=2s
Before ELROD, Chief Judge, SMITH, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
VACATED and REMANDED. (March 18, 2026).
United States v. Porter No. 25-60163
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60163-CR0.pdf
Before SMITH, WIENER, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
United States v. Hamilton No. 25-10434
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10434-CR0.pdf
Before SMITH, WIENER, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (March 17, 2026).
United States v. Villafana-Mondragon No. 25-20018
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20018-CR0.pdf
Before JONES, DUNCAN, and DOUGLAS, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (March 16, 2026).
Judge DOUGLAS dissented.
United States v. Garcia No. 24-40673
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-40673-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbjS5cl8g2M
Before ELROD, Chief Judge, SMITH, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (March 16, 2026).
United States v. Sanchez-Zurita No. 24-60602
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60602-CR0.pdf
Before ELROD, Chief Judge, RICHMAN, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
VACATED and REMANDED. (December 17, 2025).
United States v. Cockerham No. 24-60401
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60401-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=206mDrWw3No
Before HIGGINSON, HO, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
REVERSED and REMANDED. (December 17, 2025).