Early in his career, after working in the appellate section for a global law firm, Doug clerked for the Honorable Thomas Reavley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a wonderful mentor and judge.

He later spent two years as a fellow in the Appellate Litigation Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center where he supervised law students working on civil appeals. He also oversaw his own caseload. Among the cases he handled was In re Contempt Finding in United States v. Stevens, 663 F.3d 1270 (D.C. Cir. 2011), in which he successfully defended the trial court’s judgment holding prosecutors involved with the prosecution of the late Senator Ted Stevens in contempt for serious discovery violations and prosecutorial misconduct.

Doug also spent nearly a decade as an appellate attorney at Federal Defenders of San Diego—a training ground for the entire federal public defender system. During his time there, Doug regularly appeared before the Ninth Circuit on behalf of the accused. Among his most notable successes was United States v. Corrales-Vazquez, 931 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2019), a case dealing with the crime of illegal entry. Doug persuaded the Ninth Circuit that the government had been using an improperly expansive interpretation of a portion of the illegal-entry statute. Following the victory, the government had to vacate approximately 500 wrongful convictions that were then pending on appeal. Doug also filed the successful petition for certiorari in Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011), where the Supreme Court held that a district court could not impose a longer custodial sentence on a federal criminal defendant for the purpose of rehabilitation. Tapia has since helped countless defendants receive lower prison sentences.

Before founding Flowers Keller LLP, Doug spent three years as the Legal Director at the Lone Star Defenders Office in Texas. While there, Doug helped lead an office that is the indigent defense hub for Operation Lone Star—Texas’s multi-billion-dollar misadventure using state law to try to regulate immigration. Doug spearheaded numerous constitutional challenges to this unjust system. Based on arguments he devised, six judges in five counties declared the system unconstitutional. As the Legal Director, he also mentored and trained some of the brightest lawyers in Texas. For his efforts, his peers recognized him with the 2025 Champion of Indigent Defense Award.

Publications

Doug has published articles and contributed to treatises. Courts, commentators, and litigants have cited his publications. Those publications include:

• Defending a Federal Criminal Case (2023 ed.) (wrote chapter on appeals in this multiple-volume treatise).
• Defending a Federal Criminal Case (2016 ed.) (wrote chapter on evidence in this multiple-volume treatise).
• Re-thinking Illegal Entry and Re-entry, 44 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 65 (2012).
• Causing Mischief for Taylor’s Categorical Approach: Applying ‘Legal Imagination’ to Duenas-Alvarez, 18 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 625 (2011).
• Why the Prior Conviction Sentencing Enhancements in Illegal Re-Entry Cases are Unjust and Unjustified (and Unreasonable Too), 51 B.C. L. Rev. 719 (2010).
• Resolving a “Substantial Question”: Just Who is Entitled to Bail Pending Appeal under the Bail Reform Act of 1984?, 60 Fla. L. Rev. 825 (2008).
• Interpreting Foreign Law Through an Erie Lens: A Critical Look at United States v. McNab,40 Tex. Int’l L.J. 157 (2004).

Representative appellate matters

• Elsik v. State, 714 S.W.3d 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024) (ordering state smuggling conviction vacated based on arguments raised by amicus about admissibility of hearsay evidence).
• Ex parte Gonzalez-Morales, No. 04-22-00629-CR, 2023 WL 8793121 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 20, 2023) (ordering case dismissed because State had violated state and federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection).
• United States v. Nunez-Soberanis, No. 20-50259 (9th Cir. April 12, 2022) (vacating illegal-entry conviction because court at bench trial relied on inadmissible hearsay to convict client).
• United States v. Reyes, 18 F.4th 1130 (9th Cir. 2021) (remanding for resentencing because court failed to give notice that it was considering imposing a special supervised-release condition).
• United States v. Alonso, 859 F. App’x 137 (9th Cir. 2021) (vacating supervised-release condition that required client to consume any medication prescribed by prison doctor).
• United States v. Vescuso, 856 F. App’x 742 (9th Cir. 2021) (vacating significant forfeiture judgment).
• United States v. Moran-Garcia, 966 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2020) (vacating conviction because government failed to prove that venue was proper).
• United States v. Ballesteros, 816 F. App’x 74 (9th Cir. 2020) (striking down as substantively unreasonable supervised-release conditions that prohibited “assisting” or “associat[ing] with” undocumented immigrants).
• United States v. Castellanos, 803 F. App’x 90 (9th Cir. 2020) (remanding for resentencing because district court improperly imposed a sentencing enhancement for fleeing from border patrol ).
• United States v. Corrales-Vazquez, 931 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2019) (vacating conviction because the government had introduced insufficient evidence to prove violation of the charged immigration statute).
• United States v. Perez-Martinez, 779 F. App’x 479 (9th Cir. 2019) (vacating guilty plea because the government had failed to elicit an adequate factual basis).
• United States v. Holliday, No. 17-50184 (9th Cir. January 22, 2018) (remanding for resentencing because prosecutor beached plea agreement).
• United States v. Martinez, 850 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2017) (vacating conviction after determining that the trial judge had violated the Sixth Amendment by responding to a jury note without counsel present).
• United States v. Jimenez-Arvizu, No. 16-50402 (9th Cir. May 17, 2017) (remanding for resentencing because prosecutor beached plea agreement).
• United States v. Argueta-Rosales, 819 F.3d 1149, 1155-58 (9th Cir. 2016) (vacating conviction after determining that the trial judge had misapplied the correct mens rea requirement for the attempted reentry offense).
• United States v. Nevarez, 659 F. App’x 417 (9th Cir. 2016) (vacating drug conviction because the trial judge had admitted inadmissible hearsay).
• United States v. Ayala-Yupit, 668 F. App’x 233 (9th Cir. 2016) (vacating felony illegal entry conviction because the government had failed to introduce sufficient evidence of a prior misdemeanor illegal entry conviction).
• United States v. Massa, 647 F. App’x 718 (9th Cir. 2016) (vacating a significant restitution order because the order violated the restitution statute).
• United States v. Castellon, 517 F. App’x 791 (9th Cir. 2015) (vacating drug conviction because the trial court erred by denying motion to suppress that challenged whether a Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent).
• United States v. Rodriguez-Vega, 797 F.3d 781, 786-91 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding client had received ineffective assistance during prior guilty plea because counsel had not told her that she was would be deported if she pleaded guilty).
• United States v. Morales-Landa, 608 F. App’x 474 (9th Cir. 2015) (vacating illegal reentry conviction because predicate removal order was invalid).
• United States v. Garcia, 599 F. App’x 775 (9th Cir. 2015) (vacating supervised-release revocation sentence because trial judge relied on insufficient evidence to find supervised-release violation).
• United States v. McCray, 584 F. App’x 686 (9th Cir. 2014) (vacating conviction for promotional money laundry because of insufficient evidence).
• Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (remand after determining that trial judge erred by giving a longer prison sentence to promote rehabilitation).
• In re Contempt Finding in United States v. Stevens, 663 F.3d 1270 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (affirming contempt finding against prosecutors involved with prosecution of the late Senator Ted Stevens).
• United States v. Oliver-Guzman, 407 Fed. Appx. 241 (9th Cir. 2011) (remanding for resentencing because judge failed to apprehend scope of his sentencing discretion).
• United States v. Espinoza-Morales, 621 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2010) (remanding for resentencing because judge miscalculated Guideline range).
• United States v. Guerrero-Flores, 363 Fed. Appx. 525 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting government’s sentencing cross-appeal concerning whether judge improperly calculated Guideline range).
• United States v. Hernandez-Sanches, 358 Fed. Appx. 815 (9th Cir. 2009) (remanding for resentencing because judge miscalculated Guideline range).
• United States v. Hall, 271 Fed. Appx. 559 (9th Cir. 2008) (vacating fraud convictions because trial judge failed to provide fair trial).