Carlo D'Angelo P.C., Attorney at Law

04/16/2026

Thousands of Texans Face Serious Felony Charges for THC Possession

This article explains why private THC lab reports in Texas are under serious scientific and legal scrutiny.

To understand the problem with these lab reports, you first have to understand why they exist. In 2019, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 1325, which adopted the federal 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of h**p and made a sweeping change to state law: cannabis containing 0.3% or less of Delta-9-THC by dry weight is now legal h**p—not ma*****na. Anything above that threshold remains illegal ma*****na.

That single change created an immediate crisis for Texas prosecutors. Overnight, proving a ma*****na charge required proving that the substance exceeded the 0.3% Delta-9-THC threshold—a quantitative chemistry question that the Texas Department of Public Safety’s crime labs were not equipped to answer. The DPS crime labs could identify the presence of cannabinoids, but they could not measure the specific concentration of Delta-9-THC with the precision required to distinguish illegal ma*****na from legal h**p.

Rather than dismiss cases or wait for the DPS to develop the capability, many prosecutors began routing evidence to private, out-of-state laboratories. THC cases in Texas involving private lab reports are among the most scientifically and legally complex drug cases in the state right now.

04/06/2026

The Supreme Court Is About to Decide Whether the Government Can Use a Digital Dragnet to Find One Suspect

Imagine the police want to find out who robbed a bank. Instead of investigating leads and building a case the old-fashioned way, they go to Google and say: "Tell us the identity of every single person whose phone was within two blocks of this bank between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. last Tuesday." That is a geofence warrant — and later this month, the United States Supreme Court will decide whether it violates your Fourth Amendment rights.

The case is Chatrie v. United States, and oral argument is set for April 27, 2026. It literally began with a bank robbery: on May 20, 2019, a bank in Virginia was robbed, and local police obtained a geofence warrant directed at Google to find the culprit. That warrant ultimately identified Okello Chatrie as a suspect, leading to his arrest and conviction. Now Chatrie is asking the Supreme Court whether the warrant that caught him was constitutional at all.

03/31/2026

Supreme Court Rules: Absconding on While on Federal Probation Doesn't Extend Your Supervised Release

Last week, the United States Supreme Court handed down one of the most significant supervised release decisions in years. In Rico v. United States, decided March 25, 2026, the Court held 8-1 that running from your probation officer does not automatically extend your term of supervised release.

Before that term ended, Rico violated her conditions of supervised release by changing her residence without notifying her probation officer, prompting a federal arrest warrant. She remained a fugitive until January 2023, approximately a year and a half after her supervised release term should have expired. While absconding, she committed a state drug offense in January 2022 and was convicted. When federal authorities finally located her, the district court treated that 2022 drug conviction as a Grade A supervised release violation—the most serious classification—and sentenced her to 16 months of incarceration plus an additional two years of supervised release. Rico challenged that sentence on appeal, arguing the district court had no authority over conduct that occurred after her term expired in June 2021. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that her abscondment had "tolled"—effectively paused—her supervised release clock, so her term was still running when she committed the 2022 offense. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on this precise question: does absconding from supervision automatically extend a supervised release term?

The Supreme Court said no.

What the Court Decided

Writing for an overwhelming majority, Justice Gorsuch explained that Congress established specific rules for when supervised release begins and ends. The Sentencing Reform Act provides mechanisms for the government to revoke or extend release—but those mechanisms require the government to actually act. To hold someone accountable for violations after a term would have expired, the government must obtain a warrant or summons before the term expires. The government cannot simply let the clock run out and then claim it never stopped.

Why This Matters for Real People

This ruling matters for real people. Across the federal system—including right here in the Eastern District of Texas—there are defendants who have been told their supervised release was extended because they failed to report. Some are facing revocation proceedings for conduct that occurred after their term should have expired. Rico gives every one of those individuals grounds to challenge what is happening to them.

Supreme Court of the United States.March 25, 2026607 U.S. ------- S.Ct. ----2026 WL 815786

02/25/2026

The Supreme Court Just Made It Harder for Federal Prosecutors to Stack Convictions — And Every Criminal Defense Attorney Should Be Paying Attention

On January 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court handed down one of the most consequential federal criminal defense decisions in years. In Barrett v. United States, 607 U.S. ___, 146 S.Ct. 482 (2026), a unanimous Court held that a defendant who commits a single act violating both 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and § 924(j) may be convicted under only one of those provisions—not both.

In plain English: the government cannot stack two convictions on top of a defendant for what everyone agrees is the same conduct.

This is a major win for criminal defendants and for the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause.This case is a reminder that the Double Jeopardy Clause still has teeth—and that the presumption against cumulative punishment for the same offense is, as the Court emphasized, is fundamental. Federal prosecutors have grown accustomed to stacking charges to maximize leverage and sentence exposure. This decision pushes back on that practice in a meaningful way.

05/23/2025

Soon, Every Business in America Will Send and Receive Stablecoins for Payments — And Here's Why

Imagine this, it’s 2026. Your vendor invoices you on a Friday evening. You send a payment in digital dollars—not Monday morning via wire transfer, but instantly, using a legally backed stablecoin that settles in seconds. No banking delays. No FX fees. No 3-day settlement cycles. Just fast, programmable money—and soon it may be perfectly legal, regulated, and possible to do this in the United States through your bank.

That’s not science fiction. It’s reality, IF the GENIUS Act passes through Congress and becomes law.
The Legal Turning Point: The GENIUS Act

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act is poised to transform how American businesses send and receive money. It provides:

Clear legal status for "payment stablecoins"—pegged 1:1 to the U.S. dollar, not securities, not commodities
Strict requirements for issuers—full reserves, monthly audits, bank-like compliance
Real consumer protection—stablecoin holders get top priority in bankruptcy
Fast-track licensing for trusted financial institutions—no more shadowy stablecoin issuers
In short: stablecoins are becoming the digital version of the U.S. dollar—with federal protections and blockchain speed.

🏛 Why Every Business Will Use Them

If the GENIUS Act becomes law, here’s what every business gains:

24/7 settlement: Send and receive payments anytime, even weekends and holidays.
Lower fees: No wire charges, no SWIFT middlemen, no hidden delays.
No FX risk: Pay and receive in dollars globally—the value is locked.
Finality and transparency: On-chain records mean instant confirmation and no reversals.
Smart automation: Use smart contracts to automate escrow, payouts, and revenue splits.
Cross-border reach: Anyone with a wallet and internet can transact, even in emerging markets.
When the financial system moves this fast and efficiently, sticking to legacy rails will feel like sending faxes in the email era.

🔒 Legal Clarity = Business Confidence

Until now, businesses hesitated. Was it legal? Was it safe? Could stablecoins suddenly be reclassified by the SEC?

The GENIUS Act ends the guesswork. It gives businesses and their lawyers a definitive answer: yes, you can use stablecoins. No need to fear securities law traps. No need to guess if the reserves are real. Just use a permitted issuer—like USDC or PYUSD—and operate within the rules.

🧠 Strategic Insight

Just as every business eventually adopted email and websites, stablecoins will become a standard in business payments—especially for global commerce, logistics, B2B settlement, and high-volume operations.

And those who move first will enjoy the biggest advantages in cash flow, speed, and customer satisfaction.

💡 If You're Building for the Future…

Whether you're a CFO, founder, or finance lead, now is the time to explore stablecoins. The pending GENIUS Act bill in Congress provides the roadmap. The infrastructure is coming soon. The benefits are measurable.

And with the right legal guidance and legislative clarity, you can move forward confidently.

Subscribe to Stable Signals on LinkedIn for daily breakdowns of the GENIUS Act, stablecoin adoption strategies, and how businesses can lead in the new era of digital dollars.

Carlo D’Angelo, The DeFi Defense Lawyer and Founder, CryptoCounsel.io

03/27/2025

Felony DWI Conviction Affirmed: What Mendoza v. State Teaches About Suppression, Consent, and Language Barriers

The Texas Fifth Court of Appeals recently affirmed the felony DWI conviction of Margarito Espinoza Mendoza in Mendoza v. State, providing important takeaways—especially where language barriers, field sobriety tests, and blood draw consent are at issue.

Mendoza pled guilty to a third-degree felony DWI after the trial court denied his motion to suppress. On appeal, he challenged both the legality of the traffic stop and arrest, and the voluntariness of his consent to a blood draw. The court upheld the trial court's rulings on both grounds, offering a detailed analysis of the facts and the law defense lawyers should know.

Case Background: A DWI Stop Turns Felony
On September 2, 2017, Mendoza was pulled over in Collin County by a Melissa police officer who clocked him driving approximately 65 mph in a 55 mph zone. Upon initiating the stop, the officer observed multiple indicators of intoxication:

Strong odor of alcohol
Glassy eyes
Swaying, unsteady balance
Admission of drinking 3–4 beers within the past hour
During the investigation, Mendoza also presented a Mexican Consular ID instead of a driver’s license and initially struggled to understand the officer’s English commands. His brother was called to the scene to interpret the field sobriety tests in Spanish. Mendoza ultimately performed the tests, and the officer observed enough clues to support probable cause for DWI arrest. A subsequent blood draw was conducted after Mendoza gave verbal and written consent.

Motion to Suppress: Two Key Issues Raised
1. Was There Probable Cause for the Stop and Arrest?

Mendoza argued that the officer lacked probable cause to initiate the traffic stop and that language barriers rendered the field sobriety tests unreliable.

The Court of Appeals rejected both contentions:

Reasonable Suspicion for Stop: The court emphasized that only reasonable suspicion is needed to justify a traffic stop, not probable cause. The officer’s testimony about Mendoza’s speeding was sufficient.
Probable Cause for Arrest: The court found ample evidence—odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, poor balance, and admissions about drinking—to support probable cause for arrest, even aside from the field sobriety tests.
Language Barriers: Although Mendoza struggled with English, his brother interpreted the tests in Spanish, and Mendoza ultimately completed them. The court found this sufficient to rebut claims that language barriers undermined reliability.
2. Was the Blood Draw Consent Voluntary?

Mendoza’s second argument was that his consent to the blood draw wasn’t unequivocal or voluntary.

Again, the court was unpersuaded:

Clear and Convincing Evidence of Consent: The bodycam footage showed the officer played the DIC-24 statutory warning in Spanish and asked for consent multiple times. Mendoza eventually said, “Yeah, ok,” and signed a written consent form.
No Evidence of Coercion: The court emphasized that there was no suggestion of coercion or improper pressure. Mendoza had the opportunity to refuse but did not do so.
Defense Takeaways

Conclusion
Mendoza v. State is a reminder that suppression in DWI cases is often won—or lost—on careful attention to the initial stop, the quality of interpretation, and clear evidence of voluntary consent. Defense attorneys must challenge these issues with a full factual record and should be aggressive in requesting findings of fact where necessary. In cases involving non-English-speaking defendants, special care must be taken to document how communication was handled at every stage.

01/29/2025

Nigerian Sentenced for Pandemic Relief Fraud: A Case Study in Wire Fraud and Identity Theft

On January 28, 2025, a Canadian resident and Nigerian national, Fatiu Ismaila Lawal, 46, was sentenced to 54 months in federal prison for his role in a large-scale pandemic relief fraud scheme. Lawal pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft after being extradited from Canada in July 2024. His sentence follows that of his co-conspirator, Sakiru Olanrewaju Ambali, who received 42 months in prison in March 2024.

The case highlights the Department of Justice’s ongoing efforts to prosecute pandemic-related fraud, as well as the challenges in defending complex financial crime cases involving international defendants, identity theft, and federal fraud statutes.

According to court records, Lawal and Ambali engaged in a multi-year fraud scheme, using stolen identities to submit over 1,700 fraudulent claims for pandemic unemployment benefits in 25 states, including Washington, New York, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, and California.

The fraudulent claims sought approximately $25 million, with the conspirators successfully obtaining around $2.7 million. Lawal personally admitted to filing 790 fraudulent unemployment claims, securing $1,345,472 in pandemic relief funds.

In addition to unemployment fraud, authorities alleged that:

Between 2018 and 2022, Lawal filed 3,000 fraudulent tax returns, seeking $7.5 million in IRS refunds. Due to fraud detection measures, the IRS paid only $30,000 in improper refunds.
Lawal and Ambali attempted to defraud the Small Business Administration (SBA) through Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) applications. Out of 38 applications submitted, only $2,500 was disbursed before authorities intervened.
The defendants were charged with using stolen identities to open bank accounts, funnel money through “money mules,” and establish fraudulent websites and email accounts to facilitate their scheme.

Lawal was ultimately ordered to pay restitution of $1,345,472.

01/28/2025

Former Pro Basketball Player Sentenced for Pandemic Loan Fraud: A Case of COVID-19 Relief Abuse

In September 2024, Lorenzo Gordon, a 41-year-old former professional basketball player from Chesterfield, Missouri, pleaded guilty to one felony count of theft of government money in the U.S. District Court in St. Louis. Gordon admitted to fraudulently applying for two Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans and three Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On January 27, 2025, former professional basketball player Lorenzo Gordon, 41, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel to five years of probation, 200 hours of community service, and ordered to pay $308,354 in restitution for committing pandemic loan fraud. According to the DOJ, in 2020 Gordon fraudulently applied for two Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans and three Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) using the names of three companies: Logo Fitness LLC, Elite 50 Basketball Training LLC, and Elite Health and Fitness Company LLC. He received $107,074 in PPP loans and $165,700 in EIDL loans and advances. Prosecutors emphasized that Gordon exploited these programs for personal gain without experiencing any economic hardship, thereby depriving funds from those in genuine need during the COVID-19 pandemic. DOJ Press Release

01/15/2025

A Paradigm Shift in Prosecutorial Duties: State v. Heath and Article 39.14

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a groundbreaking decision State v. Heath, 696 S.W.3d 677, that reinforces and expandes the scope of prosecutors’ discovery obligations under Article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, reshaping how the state must handle evidence disclosure. For criminal defense attorneys, this ruling is not just a win but a call to action in leveraging discovery statutes for client advocacy.

As noted in the Court's opinion: In this context, "the state" means the State of Texas and includes prosecutors and law enforcement. "As soon as practicable" as the phrase appears in Article 39.14(a) means as soon as reasonably possible and does not contain a knowledge requirement on behalf of the prosecution. Thus, items discoverable under Article 39.14(a) that are in the possession of law enforcement must be produced as soon as practicable after the State’s receipt of a timely request for discovery. This case also requires us to consider whether a trial court has the authority to exclude evidence that was not timely disclosed by the State absent a showing of bad faith or prejudice. We agree with the court of appeals that under the circumstances of this case the trial court had the authority to exclude the evidence at issue. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Case Overview: A Simple Request, a Complex Outcome

Dwayne Robert Heath was indicted for injury to a child in 2016. Defense counsel promptly requested discovery, which yielded initial disclosures but not a crucial piece of evidence: a 911 call made on the day of the alleged offense. The prosecution claimed it only learned of the recording six days before trial and disclosed it immediately. Heath moved to suppress the late-disclosed evidence, arguing it violated Article 39.14(a).

The trial court sided with the defense, ruling that the delay in disclosure contravened the state’s statutory obligations. On appeal, the state contended that suppression was unwarranted in the absence of bad faith or prejudice to the defense. Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed that the state’s duty to disclose extends far beyond the prosecutor’s immediate knowledge, encompassing evidence in law enforcement’s possession.

Core Legal Issues and the Court’s Findings

1. Defining "The State" Under Article 39.14
The court clarified that "the state" includes not only the prosecuting attorney but also law enforcement and other state agents. This broad definition ensures that evidence held by police, even if unknown to the prosecutor, is subject to disclosure.

Key Takeaway: Prosecutors must actively inquire about evidence held by law enforcement. Ignorance is no excuse under the statute.

2. Interpreting "As Soon As Practicable"
The court interpreted "as soon as practicable" to mean the state must disclose evidence promptly after a timely request, irrespective of when the prosecutor becomes aware of its existence. The ruling shifts the burden to prosecutors to be proactive in coordinating with law enforcement to ensure compliance.

Key Takeaway: Defense counsel should emphasize the timeline of requests and disclosures to highlight non-compliance.

3. Exclusion as a Remedy
The trial court’s exclusion of the 911 call was upheld as a proper exercise of discretion. The court acknowledged that while exclusion is a severe remedy, it may be appropriate when the state fails to fulfill its discovery obligations. Notably, the court rejected the state’s argument that bad faith or demonstrable prejudice was necessary to justify suppression.

Key Takeaway: Defense attorneys can successfully argue for exclusion based on statutory violations alone, especially when the discovery process’s integrity is at stake.

The Practical Impact on Criminal Defense Practice

1. Expanded Discovery Rights
This decision solidifies the right to comprehensive discovery. Defense attorneys should frame discovery requests broadly to encompass all evidence in the possession of the state or its agents.

2. Proactive Challenges
Late disclosures are no longer a matter of prosecutorial oversight. The defense can hold the state accountable for delays by invoking Heath and arguing for sanctions or exclusion.

3. Advocacy for Timeliness
When evidence surfaces late, defense counsel should argue that it compromises preparation, even if no explicit prejudice is evident. The court’s recognition of statutory violations alone is a powerful tool for suppressing improperly disclosed evidence.

Strategic Insights for Defense Attorneys

The Heath ruling offers a blueprint for defense strategy:
1. Document Discovery Requests Ensure requests are clear, timely, and comprehensive. Follow up to confirm the state has consulted with law enforcement.
2. Emphasize Non-Compliance: Use timelines to highlight the state’s failure to act "as soon as practicable."
3. Argue for Exclusion: Push for suppression where late disclosure undermines trial preparation, citing Heath as authority.

Conclusion: A New Era of Accountability

State v. Heath marks a pivotal moment in Texas criminal law, reshaping discovery practices and holding the state to a higher standard of transparency. For defense attorneys, it underscores the power of leveraging Article 39.14 to protect clients’ rights and ensure fairness in the justice system.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a groundbreaking decision State v.

10/14/2024

DAngelo Legal Newsletter: Fifth Circuit Redefines 'Substantial Hardship' in Fraud Sentencing: United States v. Day

In a significant ruling for sentencing in fraud cases, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Ethan Sturgis Day's sentence and remanded for resentencing in United States v. Day (No. 23-50636, decided Sep 16, 2024).

Key Points:

1. The court found that the district court erred in applying a six-point enhancement under U.S.S.G § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) for causing substantial financial hardship to 25 or more victims.

2. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court failed to properly assess whether the loss "significantly impacted the victim's resources" for each of the 25+ victims required for the enhancement.

3. The court emphasized that the substantial hardship enhancement is distinct from the total loss amount and requires a more individualized assessment of victim impact.

Substantial financial hardship is a relatively recent addition to the Sentencing Guidelines. Added in 2015, it "advises sentencing courts to consider the extent of the harm rather than merely the total number of victims of the offense (as its predecessor did) in an effort to 'place greater emphasis on the extent of harm that particular victims suffer as a result of the offense.'"

United States v. Day, No. 23-50636, at *4 (5th Cir. Sep. 16, 2024)

4. The court upheld the two-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) for Day's role as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the criminal activity.

Implications:

When challenging substantial hardship enhancements, it is important to emphasize the need for individualized assessment of victim impact beyond mere loss amounts and argue against inferring patterns of substantial hardship without specific evidence for the required number of victims.