Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a defendant who, after losing his law license, became involved in schemes such as romance scams and business email compromises, which defrauded victims of millions of dollars. He opened bank accounts for shell companies, received funds from victims deceived by his co-conspirators, and transferred or withdrew the money for personal or further illicit purposes. Even after being confronted by bank investigators, he continued these activities.Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts convicted him on charges including wire fraud and money-laundering conspiracy, but the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed only some of those convictions, vacated others, and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the district court imposed a new sentence of 87 months’ imprisonment—below the advisory guidelines range of 108 to 135 months—and reimposed more than $2 million in restitution. The defendant appealed again, challenging both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence and the amount and scope of restitution ordered.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed and rejected all of the defendant’s claims. The court held that the district judge correctly applied the sentencing guidelines, including the base offense level, loss amount calculation, and enhancements for money laundering and sophisticated means. The court also found that the district judge properly denied a reduction for zero-point offenders, reasonably found the sentence substantively appropriate given the facts, and correctly ordered restitution, including for losses suffered by a foreign victim through a domestic bank account. The First Circuit affirmed the new sentence and restitution order in full. View "United States v. Abbas" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who was convicted under federal law for possessing a firearm after having previously been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The predicate offense was a 2010 conviction under Maine law for simple assault against his then-wife, to which he pleaded no contest after the original charge of "Domestic Violence Assault" was reduced. Several years later, he was charged federally after he admitted to police that he owned a firearm. At his federal trial, he stipulated to many elements of the offense but sought to introduce evidence that he believed, based on his plea arrangement and representations by the prosecution and his attorney in state court, that he was legally allowed to possess a firearm.Initially, the United States District Court for the District of Maine convicted him, but the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated that conviction after the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, which clarified the knowledge requirement for firearms offenses. On remand, he was retried and again convicted, but a First Circuit panel vacated the conviction due to errors in jury instructions. Sitting en banc, the First Circuit clarified the applicable knowledge standard, vacated the conviction, and remanded for another trial. On further remand, the District Court denied his Second Amendment challenge to the statute, excluded his proffered evidence regarding his belief about firearm possession, and again convicted him after a jury trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibits firearm possession by those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, does not violate the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied, in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance in United States v. Rahimi. The court also held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the defendant’s belief about the lawfulness of his conduct, as the statute does not require knowledge that firearm possession is unlawful, only knowledge of the facts that make one ineligible. The conviction and denial of the motion to dismiss were affirmed. View "US v. Minor" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was serving a term of supervised release following a federal conviction for fentanyl-related offenses. During his supervision, police responded to a domestic disturbance at his apartment, where his wife reported that, after an argument, the defendant struck her and was told to leave. When she locked him out, she stated that he kicked the apartment door, damaging it, re-entered, and took her cell phone. Police and a responding officer documented the damage to the door. The defendant was subsequently charged in state court with vandalism, among other offenses, and federal probation officers sought revocation of his supervised release based on these new alleged criminal acts.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held revocation hearings, during which both documentary evidence, such as police reports and affidavits, and live testimony from the responding officer were presented. The defendant objected to the admission of hearsay statements from his wife, arguing he was entitled to confront her and that the statements were unreliable. The district court found that the interest of justice did not require her appearance, determined her statements were sufficiently reliable, and credited the corroborating testimony of the police officer. The court concluded that the defendant had, by a preponderance of the evidence, committed vandalism under Massachusetts law and revoked his supervised release.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The appellate court held that the district court properly admitted the hearsay evidence, conducted the required balancing under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C), and made supported findings regarding the elements of vandalism. The appellate court concluded there was neither legal error nor clear error and affirmed the revocation of supervised release. View "United States v. Camillo" on Justia Law

The case involves the owner of a chain of Massachusetts pizzerias who was convicted by a jury of six counts of forced labor and attempted forced labor, primarily involving undocumented immigrant kitchen workers. The government presented evidence that the owner recruited and hired undocumented workers, subjected them to poor working conditions, monitored them through cameras, underpaid them, and intimidated them with threats of deportation and physical violence. Several former employees testified about being yelled at, assaulted, and threatened, including incidents where the owner physically attacked workers who tried to leave. The workers described working long hours without breaks, fearing retaliation if they quit, and being denied pay.A grand jury indicted the defendant in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Before trial, the defense sought a lengthy continuance, citing late discovery disclosures by the government, but the district court only partially granted the request, allowing an eight-day postponement. After a ten-day trial, the jury convicted the defendant on six counts. The defendant then moved for a new trial, arguing discovery violations and insufficient time to prepare, but the district court denied this motion and sentenced him to 102 months in prison.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, sentencing calculations, and the denial of his requests for a longer continuance and a new trial. The First Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to convict on all challenged counts, found no reversible error in the district court’s evidentiary or procedural rulings, and affirmed the sentence. The court thus affirmed both the convictions and the sentence. View "United States v. Papantoniadis" on Justia Law

In September 2022, police received a tip that the defendant was armed on the roof of a public housing building. When officers arrived and announced themselves, the defendant jumped off the roof and was found injured. He informed police that he had three firearms on the roof, where officers subsequently recovered two Glock pistols modified to fire automatically, a tactical rifle, a micro conversion kit, multiple magazines—including high-capacity ones—and 279 rounds of ammunition. At the time, the defendant was on supervised release for a prior firearm-possession conviction.The defendant pled guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico to possessing machine guns and being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition. The district court calculated an advisory guidelines range of sixty-three to seventy-eight months based on the total offense level and criminal history. The defendant requested a sentence at the bottom of the range, citing improved mental health and questioning the evidence, while the government requested a sentence at the top of the range due to the defendant’s criminal history and the quantity and type of weapons and ammunition possessed. The district court imposed a ninety-six-month sentence, an eighteen-month upward variance, citing the dangerousness of the weapons, the large cache of ammunition, the defendant’s prior conviction, his commission of the offense while on supervised release, and his active surveillance of the rooftop.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the defendant argued his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable and that the government breached the plea agreement by defending the upward variance. The First Circuit held that the district court adequately explained its reasons for the upward variance, properly considered aggravating factors not captured by the guidelines, and did not abuse its discretion. The court also found no breach of the plea agreement. The judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Maldonado-Velazquez" on Justia Law

After serving time for a federal drug trafficking conviction, the defendant entered a residential re-entry program as ordered by the court. On November 2, 2023, while returning from an approved work pass, a drive-by shooting occurred near the facility. The defendant fled and later told staff he would return, but did not. Nearly two months later, U.S. Marshals arrested him at a residence where they found a Glock pistol modified to function as a machine gun, seven magazines (five high capacity), and 152 rounds of nine-millimeter ammunition. The defendant pled guilty to escaping from the re-entry program and to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico calculated a guideline range of 33 to 41 months’ imprisonment. The defendant requested a sentence at the low end of the range, citing compliance prior to escape and his acceptance of responsibility. The government sought the high end, emphasizing the escape and the significant quantity and nature of the firearm and ammunition found. The court determined that the guideline range did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offenses, or promote respect for the law and deterrence, and imposed two concurrent sentences of 60 months—an upward variance of 19 months above the guideline range.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Applying plain error review to the procedural challenge, the court found that the district court adequately justified the upward variance based on the specific facts: the modified pistol and large amount of ammunition and magazines. For substantive reasonableness, reviewed for abuse of discretion, the appellate court held that these aggravating factors legitimately distinguished the case from typical guideline cases. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence. View "United States v. Del-Valle-Camacho" on Justia Law

Marcus Mello was charged with multiple offenses in connection with drug trafficking activities in Maine, including distributing pills purported to be oxycodone but containing fentanyl, possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and later, failing to appear for his scheduled jury trial. The investigation linked Mello to a supplier named "Chop" and documented several large shipments of pills, some of which were sold to individuals, one of whom subsequently died from fentanyl toxicity. Law enforcement seized thousands of pills, a firearm, and cash during Mello’s arrest, and communications confirmed ongoing drug transactions over several months.Following his indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, Mello pleaded guilty to all charges. At sentencing, the district court calculated a Guidelines range of 228-270 months, based on drug quantity, criminal history (including juvenile adjudications), and enhancements for obstruction of justice due to his failure to appear. The court denied Mello’s requests for downward departures related to age, mental health, and overrepresentation of criminal history, and also denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. After considering the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court varied downward and sentenced Mello to a total of 181 months’ imprisonment.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Mello challenged his sentence on both procedural and substantive grounds. The First Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings and legal conclusions for clear error and abuse of discretion, and procedural rulings de novo. The appellate court held that the district court had not erred in its drug quantity calculation, consideration of juvenile adjudications, application of enhancements and denials of reductions, or its refusal to depart further from the Guidelines. The First Circuit concluded that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Mello" on Justia Law

Marilyn Besosa-Noceda moved from Puerto Rico to Texas with her daughter, whose biological father, Emmanuel Santiago-Melendez, objected to the relocation and subsequently filed criminal charges against Besosa, alleging she deprived him of access to his child. Santiago’s complaint led to Besosa’s arrest in Texas and extradition to Puerto Rico. Ultimately, the criminal charges were dismissed after Besosa demonstrated a lack of probable cause.After the dismissal, Besosa filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the police officer who received Santiago’s complaint, the prosecutor who authorized the criminal charges, and the prosecutor’s supervisor. She alleged malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Commonwealth law, claiming her constitutional rights were violated by the initiation of legal process unsupported by probable cause. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The court found the arrest warrant was issued by a judge based on probable cause and was not obtained through false statements or omissions. The district court also rejected Besosa’s claim that her absence from the probable cause hearings violated her rights, finding no entitlement under Commonwealth law to be present at such hearings.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed Besosa’s arguments, including a challenge to an unresolved discovery dispute and the merits of the summary judgment ruling. The First Circuit held that Besosa failed to invoke the proper procedural mechanism to delay summary judgment pending discovery and that she did not present evidence showing the defendants knowingly provided false information or recklessly disregarded the truth when seeking the arrest warrant. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants. View "Besosa-Noceda v. Capo-Rivera" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery for an offense committed at age 17, resulting in a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole under Massachusetts law. Decades later, following developments in constitutional law, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that life-without-parole sentences for juveniles were unconstitutional and ordered that such sentences be modified to life with the possibility of parole. As a result, the petitioner’s sentence was changed; he became parole eligible, was granted parole, and was released.After this modification, the petitioner sought to file a second habeas corpus petition in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that this petition was “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and thus subject to its “gatekeeping” requirements, concluding that the addition of parole eligibility did not constitute a new judgment for purposes of federal habeas law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed de novo whether the sentence modification constituted a new judgment. The court held that the change from life without parole to life with parole eligibility was a material change, making the sentence a new judgment under federal law. The court reasoned that, because the petitioner’s current custody was authorized by this new judgment, his second-in-time habeas petition did not trigger the restrictions of § 2244(b).Therefore, the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the petitioner need not obtain pre-authorization to file his habeas petition, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Donovan v. Massachusetts Parole Board" on Justia Law

A political news producer in Puerto Rico contacted a senior government official, warning that the son of the Treasury Secretary possessed damaging chat messages about the administration and might release them unless political attacks on his father ceased. The producer and the official met twice; the producer described a binder of messages and relayed demands for $300,000, renewal of two government contracts, and payments to media personalities in exchange for withholding the chats and favorable coverage. After the chats were leaked, resulting in political turmoil and resignations, the official became a confidential FBI source, recorded a second meeting, and collaborated with agents. The producer later deleted relevant messaging records from the official's phone during an FBI interview.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held a jury trial. The jury convicted the producer on three counts: attempted extortion under the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951), transmitting a threatening communication with intent to extort (18 U.S.C. § 875(d)), and destruction of records in a federal investigation (18 U.S.C. § 1519). The defendant moved for acquittal and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and errors in jury instructions. The district court denied these motions and sentenced him to fifty-one months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed sufficiency of the evidence and the alleged procedural errors. It held that the evidence was sufficient for all counts, including proof of wrongful threats and intent to extort, and that the government did not commit prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations. The court found no reversible error in the jury instructions or limitations on cross-examination and affirmed the convictions in full. View "United States v. Diaz-Colon" on Justia Law