Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was indicted for aiding and abetting in the possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Defendant filed a motion to suppress a series of inculpatory statements. Specifically, Defendant sought to suppress (1) a statement he made to his arresting officer, arguing that he was questioned while in formal custody but prior to being given Miranda warnings, and (2) all statements he made during his formal interrogation, arguing that the questioning resumed impermissibly soon after his initial refusal to make a statement and continued after his unambiguous request for counsel. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived his argument for suppression of the statement he made to his arresting officer; and (2) there was no violation of Defendant’s right to remain silent during his formal interrogation, and Defendant did not invoke his right to counsel in a manner sufficiently unambiguous and direct as to require the cessation of questioning. View "United States v. Oquendo-Rivas" on Justia Law

Defendants, Jose Cabezudo-Kuilan (Cabezudo) and Heriberto Millan-Isaac (Millan), pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting a robbery and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence. The district court first sentenced Millan to 180 months in prison and then sentenced Cabezudo to 114 months in prison. After sentencing Cabezudo, however, the sentencing judge sua sponte decreased Millan’s sentence to 120 months in prison. Defendants challenged their sentences on appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court plainly erred in sentencing both Appellants, where (1) the district court sentenced Cabezudo without calculating the applicable Guidelines Sentencing Range; and (2) the district court sentenced Millan without providing him with notice and an opportunity to rebut the facts that formed the basis of his sentence. View "United States v. Millan-Isaac" on Justia Law

In 2002, Appellant was convicted in Massachusetts state court on charges of forcibly raping his nephew, J.B., and J.B.’s friend when both boys were fifteen years old. Appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to seek to have admitted evidence that Appellant’s sister had accused J.B. of sexually assaulting three of Appellant’s nieces. The Massachusetts appeals court affirmed. Appellant later filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal district court, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in his state court trial. The district court denied relief. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Massachusetts appeals court reasonably applied federal law in rejecting Appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Collins v. Roden" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and was sentenced to a sixty-month incarcerative term, the maximum sentence allowable under the statute of conviction. Appellant challenged his sentence on appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding that the sentencing court did not err (1) in its drug-quantity calculation; (2) by enhancing Defendant’s offense level for obstruction of justice; (3) by refusing to reduce the offense level for acceptance of responsibility; (4) in deciding to eschew either a downward variance or departure; and (5) by choosing to impose a sixty-month sentence. View "United States v. Maguire" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possessing counterfeit obligations of the United States and sentenced to fifty-one months’ imprisonment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of the truck Appellant was driving when he was initially stopped by law enforcement officers and from the seizure of money in Appellant’s wallet; (2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion for acquittal; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant. View "United States v. Almeida, III" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of either crime. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant’s conviction as to both counts, holding that, although another jury may have concluded otherwise, (1) the evidence plausibly supported the jury’s conclusion that Defendant possessed the marijuana with the requisite intent to distribute; and (2) a reasonable jury could have found that Defendant possessed the firearm “in furtherance of” a drug trafficking offense. View "United States v. Bobadilla-Pagan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against their bank and others, asserting a cause of action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), among other claims, asserting that Defendants engaged in an unlawful scheme to lend Plaintiffs money in violation of federal margin requirements limiting the extent to which securities can be used as collateral for funds loaned to purchase the securities. The district court (1) dismissed the complaint as to two defendants for failure of service, and (2) dismissed the remainder of the suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, finding that the alleged misconduct was not actionable under RICO, which does not encompass private claims that would have been actionable as securities fraud. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly concluded that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief under RICO; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint as to two defendants for failure of service. View "Calderon-Serra v. Banco Santander P.R." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of the crime of possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence of a pistol found in his possession by state law enforcement authorities because it was obtained pursuant to an invalidated arrest warrant and in violation of his Miranda rights. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, pursuant to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule articulated most recently in Herring v. United States, the evidence did not warrant exclusion because the officers acted in good faith and relied on a warrant that was facially valid at the time they detained Defendant. View "United States v. Echevarria-Rios" on Justia Law

Appellant acted as counsel in district court for a criminal defendant (“Defendant”) who pleaded guilty to several charges arising out of a carjacking. The day before a disposition hearing was scheduled to take place, Appellant moved for a continuance, stating that she could not attend the scheduled sentencing because it conflicted with the commencement of a trial in another criminal case. The district court denied the motion. The court subsequently fined Appellant a monetary sanction, stating that Appellant had not been “candid with the Court” because she entered her appearance in the second case subsequent to requesting the continuance of Defendant’s sentencing. Appellant sought a vacation of the monetary sanction, asserting that she had been a key participant in the second case for several months. The district court denied relief. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the sanctions order and expunged the sanction, holding that the district court abused its discretion in sanctioning Appellant, as there was no appropriate basis for a finding that Appellant had not been candid with the court. View "In re Plaza-Martinez" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. The district court sentenced Appellant to 180 months’ imprisonment, the mandatory minimum for an individual deemed an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred in concluding that one of his prior convictions - a 2006 conviction for assault and battery on a court officer - qualified as a “violent felony” as that term is defined in the ACCA’s residual clause. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Appellant’s sentence, holding (1) the ACCA is not void for vagueness; and (2) assault and battery on a court officer qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law