Latest 2 Cases: United States v. Huntsberry (Criminal Law), United States v. Martinez-Ovalle (Criminal Law)

How Allen v. Cooper Breaks Important New (if Dubious) Ground on Stare Decisis

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on language in a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Allen v. Cooperdiscussing constitutional stare decisis in the context of state sovereign immunity. Amar points out some of the problems with the Court’s jurisprudence on state sovereign immunity and Congress’s Section 5 power, and he questions the Allen majority’s embrace of a “special justification” requirement for constitutional stare decisis.

Read More

United States v. Huntsberry

Docket: 18-31269

Opinion Date: April 10, 2020

Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for various drug offenses and for possessing firearms as a convicted felon. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's felon in possession conviction, because a reasonable jury could plausibly infer, based on the evidence presented, that defendant had knowledge of the weapons. Furthermore, even assuming the district court plainly erred in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), defendant failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for that error, much less that the error affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Finally, the court held that district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to sever the felon-in-possession count from the drug counts.

United States v. Martinez-Ovalle

Docket: 19-10957

Opinion Date: April 10, 2020

Judge: Don R. Willett

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for illegal reentry after removal. The court held that the Ex Post Facto Clause required the sentencing court to apply the 2016 Guidelines to his 2018 offense. The court explained that, under the 2016 Guidelines, those in effect when defendant's crime concluded, his sentencing range would have been 18–24 months. However, under the 2018 Guidelines, defendant's sentencing range jumped to 30–37 months. Therefore, the court held that defendant was ultimately sentenced under the 2018 sentencing range, and the disparity between the 2016 Guidelines range means that he was sentenced in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.