In United States v. Zeno, No. 23-30651 (5th Cir. May 6, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded his case for resentencing because the district court had miscalculated the amount of time already spent in state custody, which would not be automatically credited by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. See USSG § 5G1.3.

In United States v. Xavier Angelo Hernandez, No. 23-50529 (5th Cir. May 6, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s firearm conviction and his 300-month prison sentence, despite his arguments that his factual basis was insufficient to support his guilty plea and that his plea was not knowing and voluntary.

In United States v. Osemwengie, No. 23-20511 (5th Cir. May 2, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s sentence for conspiring to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.

In United States v. Daniel, No. 23-30491 (5th Cir. May 2, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court’s decision to deny Daniel’s motion to suppress evidence found after officers had stopped and searched the SUV he was driving. Officers had reasonable suspicion to extend his traffic stop, and their canine’s alert gave them reason to search the SUV.

In United States v. Rodriguez, No. 23-50069 (5th Cir. May 2, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit held that the district court had committed plain error by applying an elevated base offense level under Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.1(a)(6).

In United States v. Coles, No. 23-20021 (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s convictions for Hobbs Act robbery and discharging a firearm during the same, and it affirmed his 480-month prison sentence. The district court had not erred by allowing the Government to play a video of the defendant previously committing a similar robbery in another state.

In United States v. Perkins, —- F.4th —-, No. 22-50987 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2024), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s conviction but vacated his sentence because the district court failed to sufficiently explain its sentence, which was an upward variance from the applicable Sentencing Guideline range. On the other hand, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that Perkins had been competent to proceed.

In United States v. Sterling, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-30069 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2024), the Fifth Circuit rejected the defendant’s “several Sixth Amendment claims in support of his bid to overturn his conviction and sentence following a jury trial in which he appeared pro se.”

In United States v. West, —- F.4th —-, No. 22-11001 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2024), the Fifth Circuit vacated a restitution order because “the district court failed to conduct a proximate-cause analysis as required by precedent.”

In United States v. Fluitt, —- F.4th —-, No. 22-30316 (5th Cir. Apr. 24, 2024), the Fifth Circuit heard an interlocutory discovery appeal brought by a third party whose documents were disclosed over its claim of privilege. The lower court had ordered the Government to produce those materials to the defendant in his criminal case, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed that order.