Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of fraudulently collecting federal civil service retirement survivor annuity payments intended for her mother. The district court sentenced Defendant to time served plus thirty days of incarceration and ordered her to pay $77,379 in restitution. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) any error in disallowing Defendant’s peremptory challenge to a prospective juror and in seating the individual on the jury was harmless; (2) the district court did not violate the rule against hearsay by admitting into evidence photocopies of the annuity checks that were deposited in Defendant’s bank account; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence a copy of a Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles record of information about Defendant’s drivers license; and (4) there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that Defendant committed the charged offenses. View "United States v. Bowles" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of conspiracy with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting in drug distribution. The district court elevated Defendant’s offense level in light of the jury’s finding that the drug sales had occurred in close proximity to a youth center. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held (1) 21 U.S.C. 860(a), which doubles the maximum available penalty for drug distribution in close proximity to a youth center, creates an independent substantive offense, rather than operating merely as a sentence-enhancing factor, but the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s convictions for that offense; and (2) notwithstanding that the evidence was insufficient to ground the convictions under section 860(a), Defendant may be held to account on a lesser included offense theory under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Accordingly, the Court vacated the convictions and sentence under 21 U.S.C. 860(a), ordered the entry of convictions under section 841(a)(1), and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Sepulveda-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted with one count of cyberstalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2261A. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to the cyberstalking charge. Defendant was sentenced to a term of sixty months’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the cyberstalking charge in the indictment and argued that his sentence above the Guidelines range was unreasonable. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) section 2261A was constitutionally applied to Defendant and is not overbroad; and (2) the district court’s decision to vary upward rather than depart downward was not an abuse of discretion. View "United States v. Sayer" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of several federal crimes related to his efforts to have sex with a child. Some months later the judge sentenced Defendant to life plus ten years in prison. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated the life sentences, holding (1) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting evidence of Defendant’s 1993 New Jersey conviction; (2) Defendant’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2260A for committing a particular felony crime involving a minor while required to register as a sex offender was valid; but (3) the district court erred in sentencing Defendant to life imprisonment, and because vacating Defendant’s life terms undid the judge’s sentencing schematic, a resentencing on the other counts was appropriate. Remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Appellant conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a firearm following a prior conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) and 924(a). Appellant appealed, arguing, among other things, that commission of simple assault by recklessly causing offensive physical contact does not constitute the “use or attempted use of physical force” as required to qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” and therefore, his prior conviction could not serve as a valid predicate offense for purposes of section 922(g)(9). The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Appellant’s conviction and the district court’s denial of Appellant’s original motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory grounds, holding that the record was insufficiently developed as to the issue of whether, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Castleman, there may be some merit to Appellant’s statutory argument. Remanded. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

Brothers Angel Ayala-Vazquez (“Alaya”) and Luis Cruz-Vazquez (“Cruz”) (collectively, “Appellants”) were arrested and indicted following a federal investigation into a wide-ranging drug trafficking organization (“DTO”) based out of two housing projects in Bayamon, Puerto Rico. Unlike dozens of other defendants who entered guilty pleas, Appellants stood trial together. Appellants were both convicted of multiple criminal charges related to their involvement in the DTO, and each Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and Cruz’s life sentence, holding (1) the evidence introduced at trial was sufficient to support the jury verdicts; (2) the trial judge’s comments at trial did not deprive Appellants of a fair trial; and (3) the district judge did not abuse his discretion in sentencing Cruz to life imprisonment, and Cruz failed to overcome the sentence’s presumption of reasonableness. View "United States v. Ayala-Vazquez" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to commit money laundering as set forth in an indictment that also included drug-trafficking charges. The district court subsequently sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment of 220 months. Appellant appealed his sentence, contending that the district court unduly relied on evidence concerning the underlying drug crimes rather than the money-laundering itself when determining his sentence. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) remanded the matter with directions to revisit the application of the enhancement for being “in the business of laundering” funds, holding that more specific factual findings were necessary to allow the Court to adequately review the application of that enhancement; and (2) upheld the district court’s other sentencing determinations, holding that Appellant’s other claims of error were meritless. View "United States v. Lucena-Rivera" on Justia Law

After a search of Appellant’s vehicle turned up heroin, cocaine, and oxycodone, Appellant was arrested, indicted, and pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute. Relying on two prior felony convictions that Appellant had, the district court treated Defendant as a career offender and sentenced her to 108 months’ imprisonment. Appellant appealed her sentence, challenging her classification as a career offender. Specifically, Appellant argued that her two prior convictions should have been treated as one for sentencing purposes. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court properly sentenced Appellant as a career offender pursuant to section 4B1.1(a) of the 2006 United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty to a drug conspiracy charge. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court made a prejudicial error in its Sentencing Guideline calculation and improperly imposed his sentence consecutive to a sentence he received earlier as a result of a conviction tangentially related to the relevant drug conspiracy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) vacated Appellant’s sentence, where the government conceded that the district court erred in its Guideline calculation; and (2) affirmed the district court’s decision to impose the sentence in this case consecutively to Appellant’s earlier sentence, holding (i) the waiver of appeal in Appellant’s plea agreement did not bar Appellant’s appeal, but (ii) the consecutive sentence was not improper. Remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Santiago-Burgos" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with structuring financial transactions to evade reporting requirements in violation of 31 U.S.C. 5324(a)(3). After a trial, Defendant was convicted and sentenced. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act and the Sixth Amendment; (2) Defendant’s claim that his counsel provided ineffective assistance required further factual development; (3) consistent with due process, Defendant could be convicted of structuring his transactions in a way that demonstrated his intent to evade the reporting requirements, even though he actually failed to evade them; and (4) the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, and the court’s sentencing guidelines calculation was not erroneous. View "United States v. Souza" on Justia Law