Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Dionel Guía-Sendeme was involved in a venture to smuggle 135 kilograms of cocaine from the Dominican Republic to Puerto Rico. He was recruited to move gasoline tanks onto a boat, initially believing it was for smuggling undocumented individuals. Upon learning it was for drug smuggling, he agreed to participate for $10,000. Guía and another individual, Abel, operated the vessel. Abel received a GPS device, a compass, phone numbers, and a handgun. They were informed that a second vessel would monitor for law enforcement. After transferring drugs from the second vessel and loading more drugs at another location, Guía agreed to accompany Abel to Puerto Rico for an additional $10,000. Upon arrival, law enforcement seized the drugs, and Guía was apprehended while Abel escaped.Guía was indicted on four counts related to drug trafficking and pleaded guilty to all counts without a plea agreement. The U.S. Probation Office recommended against a mitigating role adjustment and for a firearm enhancement. The district court adopted these recommendations, calculating an advisory guideline sentencing range of 108 to 135 months but imposed a 72-month sentence after granting a downward variance. Guía objected to the sentence, but the court stated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the objections.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in its mitigating role analysis by not properly identifying the universe of participants involved in the criminal activity and failing to compare Guía's conduct to that of other participants. The appellate court vacated Guía's sentence and remanded for resentencing, instructing the district court to reconsider the mitigating role adjustment. The appellate court upheld the firearm enhancement, finding sufficient evidence that Guía knew his coconspirator possessed a firearm. View "US v. Guia-Sendeme" on Justia Law

Héctor Maldonado-Maldonado was involved in an altercation with a senior corrections officer (SCO) at the Metropolitan Detention Center Guaynabo in August 2020. During a routine lockdown, the SCO noticed Maldonado was not in his cell and found contraband (an extra pillow). When the SCO removed the pillow, Maldonado returned, yelled profanities, and punched the SCO. Maldonado and his cellmate, Miguel Santana-Avilés, then assaulted the SCO, causing bodily injuries. Maldonado was indicted and charged with assaulting a federal officer. He entered a plea agreement proposing a sentencing calculation resulting in a Total Offense Level (TOL) of 13.The probation officer prepared a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) with a different guidelines calculation, applying the "aggravated assault" guideline and recommending a TOL of 24. Maldonado objected to the PSR, arguing that the facts did not support the aggravated assault guideline. The government’s sentencing memorandum and the prosecutor at the hearing advocated for a higher sentence, including a four-point enhancement for "serious bodily injury," which was not part of the plea agreement. The district court adopted the PSR’s calculation and sentenced Maldonado to 78 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The government conceded that it breached the plea agreement by advocating for a higher enhancement and not adhering to the agreed-upon sentencing range. The court agreed that the breach was clear and obvious, affecting Maldonado’s substantial rights and the fairness of the proceedings. The court vacated Maldonado’s sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge, emphasizing that the fault lay with the prosecutor, not the sentencing judge. View "United States v. Maldonado-Maldonado" on Justia Law

The defendant, Carlos Vázquez-Narvaez, pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). The probation office calculated a guideline sentencing range of fifty-one to sixty-three months of imprisonment and five years to life of supervised release. However, the district court sentenced Vázquez to time served (twenty-one days) and seven years of supervised release. The government appealed, arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable due to a lack of a plausible sentencing rationale.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico accepted Vázquez's guilty plea and agreed with the probation office's guideline calculation. Despite this, the court imposed a significantly lower sentence than the guideline range, citing Vázquez's cooperation, compliance with bail conditions, and participation in specialized treatment for sex offenders. The court also noted that Vázquez had no direct contact with the victims and did not produce or entice child pornography. The government objected, arguing that the sentence was too lenient given the seriousness of the offense and the potential for sentencing disparities.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court did not adequately explain its basis for the extraordinary downward variance. The appellate court emphasized that the district court's rationale focused almost exclusively on Vázquez's post-arrest conduct and potential for rehabilitation, without sufficiently addressing the seriousness of the offense, the need for general deterrence, or the potential for sentencing disparities. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, requiring a more thorough and comprehensive explanation for any significant variance from the guideline range. View "United States v. Vazquez-Narvaez" on Justia Law

In November 2004, Julio Rodríguez-Méndez participated in a carjacking in Puerto Rico while possessing a firearm. He was first prosecuted in a Puerto Rico Commonwealth court for robbery of a motor vehicle and carrying a weapon without a license, to which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to twelve years in prison. Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted him on three counts related to the same carjacking, including unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Rodríguez pleaded guilty to the felon-in-possession count, and the other charges were dismissed. He was sentenced to 216 months in prison, partly due to being classified as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).Rodríguez filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his conviction on double jeopardy grounds and to challenge his ACCA enhancement. The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denied his motion, holding that double jeopardy did not apply and that his prior convictions for motor vehicle robbery qualified as ACCA predicates.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected Rodríguez's double jeopardy claim, stating that the federal felon-in-possession offense and the Commonwealth firearm offense are separate offenses under the Blockburger test, as each requires proof of an element that the other does not. However, the court agreed with Rodríguez that his prior convictions under Article 173B of the Puerto Rico Penal Code did not qualify as ACCA predicates. The court found that the statute's definition of "intimidation" was broader than the ACCA's requirement for violent felonies, as it included threats against property, not just persons.The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Rodríguez's double jeopardy claim but reversed the denial of his § 2255 motion regarding the ACCA enhancement, vacating his sentence and remanding for resentencing. View "Rodriguez-Mendez v. United States" on Justia Law

The case involves Jean Carlos Marrero-Burgos, who pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Marrero was arrested after police received a tip and found him with a modified Glock pistol, ammunition, and drugs in a house in Bayamón, Puerto Rico. The police also recovered a significant amount of ammunition and drugs from the house.Following his arrest, Marrero was temporarily detained, and a Grand Jury indicted him on four counts. He initially pleaded not guilty but later entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to two counts. The parties jointly recommended a ninety-month sentence, but the district court imposed a 108-month sentence, citing the dangerous nature of the firearm, the amount of ammunition, and community-based concerns such as gun violence in Puerto Rico.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Marrero argued that the district court's sentence was based on erroneous factfinding and undue reliance on community-based characteristics. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court's finding that Marrero possessed the ammunition. The court also held that the district court did not give undue weight to community-based characteristics and that the upward variance was justified based on the dangerousness of the firearm and other factors.The First Circuit affirmed the district court's 108-month sentence, finding it both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court emphasized that the district court had considered a mix of individualized and community-based factors in arriving at the sentence. View "United States v. Marrero Burgos" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Kelechi Collins Umeh, was involved in a conspiracy to commit bank fraud. From June 2018 to January 2020, Umeh participated in a scheme that defrauded over 30 victims of more than $1.3 million through various online scams, including romance scams, advance fee scams, and business email compromise scams. Umeh, a Nigerian national, used fake passports to open bank accounts under false identities, into which the fraudulently obtained funds were deposited. He then withdrew the proceeds, with nearly $550,000 attributed to accounts he controlled.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts initially handled the case. Umeh was arrested in July 2022 and, after his initial appearance, requested appointed counsel. He later entered into a plea agreement, waiving indictment and pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. The plea agreement detailed the maximum penalties, potential immigration consequences, and the government's sentencing recommendations. During the change-of-plea hearing, the district court conducted a colloquy with Umeh, confirming his understanding of the plea agreement and the rights he was waiving.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Umeh argued that errors during the change-of-plea colloquy rendered his plea unknowing and involuntary. However, the court found that any procedural shortcomings did not affect Umeh's decision to plead guilty. The court noted that Umeh was informed of his rights and the consequences of his plea through the plea agreement and his initial appearance. The court concluded that Umeh's substantial rights were not affected and affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Umeh" on Justia Law

The case involves Jorge Mercado-Cañizares, who was serving a term of supervised release after a prison sentence for armed robbery. On March 3, 2021, while on supervised release, Mercado was stopped by police in Ponce, Puerto Rico, for a seatbelt violation. During the stop, officers found a modified Glock pistol capable of automatic fire and additional ammunition in his possession. Mercado was arrested, and further search revealed more ammunition and cannabis at his apartment.The United States Probation Office petitioned for revocation of Mercado's supervised release, and he was charged with possession of a machinegun and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a prohibited person. At the revocation hearing, the district court imposed a sixty-month sentence, the statutory maximum, which was an 82% upward variance from the Guidelines range of twenty-seven to thirty-three months. Mercado's counsel objected to the sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable.Subsequently, Mercado reached a plea agreement on the new charges, pleading guilty to possession of a machinegun. The district court imposed a forty-eight-month sentence, a 30% upward variance from the Guidelines range of thirty to thirty-seven months, citing the dangerous nature of machineguns, the quantity of ammunition, a policy disagreement with the Guidelines, and community-based statistics on gun violence in Puerto Rico. Mercado's counsel again objected to the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the sixty-month revocation sentence, finding it procedurally flawed due to insufficient explanation for the upward variance. However, the court affirmed the forty-eight-month sentence for the § 922(o) charge, finding the amount of ammunition sufficient to support the upward variance. View "United States v. Mercado-Canizares" on Justia Law

Kalel Martínez-Bristol was indicted on June 24, 2021, for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and for possession of a machinegun. At the time, he was on federal supervised release for a 2011 drug conspiracy conviction. He pled guilty to the felon-in-possession charge on September 9, 2022. The presentence report identified the firearm as a pistol with a machinegun conversion device. Martínez did not object to the report. On February 6, 2023, he was sentenced to 46 months' imprisonment for the felon-in-possession conviction.The District Court for the District of Puerto Rico also addressed the supervised release violation. The government argued it was a Grade A violation due to the machinegun, while Martínez argued for a Grade B violation. The court initially granted a continuance for further evidence. At the continued hearing, the government presented evidence that the firearm was a machinegun, which Martínez did not cross-examine. The court determined it was a Grade A violation and sentenced Martínez to 15 months' imprisonment, consecutive to his other sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Martínez waived any appeal regarding his felon-in-possession conviction and sentence by not briefing those issues. He argued that his due process and confrontation rights were violated in the revocation hearing, but the court found no error. The court noted that Martínez had the evidence months before the hearing and did not object. The court affirmed the judgments, finding the government's evidence sufficient to establish the firearm as a machinegun. View "United States v. Martinez-Bristol" on Justia Law

Karen Read was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of personal injury resulting in death. Her trial in Norfolk County Superior Court lasted thirty-seven days, after which the jury deliberated for approximately twenty-eight hours. The jury sent three notes to the trial judge indicating they were deadlocked. On July 1, 2024, after receiving the third note, the trial judge declared a mistrial. A retrial was scheduled for April 1, 2025.Read moved to dismiss Counts One and Three, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred retrial. The trial judge denied the motion, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed the decision. Read then filed a habeas petition in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking to prevent the state court from retrying her on those counts, claiming a retrial would violate her double jeopardy rights. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied her habeas petition.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the trial judge exercised sound discretion in declaring a mistrial due to the jury's deadlock, which constituted "manifest necessity." The court also found that there was no acquittal on Counts One and Three, as the jury did not publicly affirm a not guilty verdict. The court affirmed the district court's decision and denied Read's motion to stay the state court proceedings pending appeal. View "Read v. Norfolk County Superior Court" on Justia Law

Walter Aceituno, a Guatemalan citizen, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1989. In 2014, he pled guilty to drug-trafficking charges after being arrested in a sting operation involving the purchase of cocaine. His attorneys informed him that he would be deported as a result of his guilty plea, but did not explicitly state that he would be permanently barred from reentering the United States. Aceituno was deported in 2015 and later illegally reentered the U.S. in 2019, leading to further legal issues.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted Aceituno's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, allowing him to withdraw his 2014 guilty plea. The district court found that Aceituno's attorneys provided ineffective assistance by failing to inform him of the permanent reentry bar, and that Aceituno acted reasonably in not seeking earlier relief due to his ongoing efforts to reunite with his family through various legal means.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Aceituno's attorneys met the requirements set forth in Padilla v. Kentucky by informing him of the risk of deportation. The court found that the district court erred in concluding that the attorneys were required to inform Aceituno of the permanent reentry bar. Additionally, the appellate court determined that Aceituno's delay in seeking relief was unreasonable and that the equities did not justify the issuance of the writ. The court emphasized the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the lack of compelling circumstances to warrant coram nobis relief. The writ was quashed, and the petition was dismissed. View "Aceituno v. United States" on Justia Law