United States v. Vaughn

── United States v. Vaughn ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-50136 Document: 73-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals No. 25-50136 Fifth Circuit Summary Calendar FILED ____________ April 24, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Vickiel Vincent Vaughn, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-1062-2 ______________________________ Before Barksdale, Oldham, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Vickiel Vincent Vaughn challenges his conviction and within- Guidelines 30-months’ imprisonment sentence with three years’ supervised release for conspiracy to transport illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. He asserts the district court erred by: admitting evidence of text _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50136 Document: 73-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 No. 25-50136 messages connecting him to the crime; and relying on an improper sentencing factor when imposing supervised release. Vaughn challenges the admission of the text-message evidence on authenticity and Confrontation Clause grounds. Challenges to evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Jackson, 636 F.3d 687, 692 (5th Cir. 2011). If, however, defendant, as here, asserts a Confrontation Clause violation, we review de novo, “subject to harmless error analysis”. United States v. Morgan, 505 F.3d 332, 338 (5th Cir. 2007). Concerning authenticity, the record reflects the text messages were between Vaughn and the driver of the vehicle containing illegal aliens, who were sitting on the back seat; Vaughn was seated on the front seat. United States v. Barnes, 803 F.3d 209, 217 (5th Cir. 2015) (concluding evidence authenticated where “Government laid sufficient foundation”). Regarding the Confrontation Clause, the text messages were not the requisite testimonial statements; rather, they facilitated the transportation of illegal aliens. See United States v. Towns, 718 F.3d 404, 411 (5th Cir. 2013) (holding pharmacy purchase records not testimonial because they were created “to comply with state regulatory measures, not in response to an active prosecution”). Accordingly, the court did not err by admitting the text- messages. Vaughn contends the court imposed an improper supervised-release term because it: failed to make individualized findings; and relied on improper sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). Because Vaughn did not preserve these issues in district court, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, he must show a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he 2 Case: 25-50136 Document: 73-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2026