Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2010, Petitioner pleaded guilty to several charges in connection with a drug-trafficking enterprise. The district court sentenced Petitioner to a ten-year term of immurement. Thereafter, Petitioner moved to correct the sentence. The district court denied the motion, ruling that the charges to which Petitioner had pleaded guilty barred him from receiving a shorter sentence. In 2012, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The magistrate judge set an evidentiary hearing limited to Petitioner’s claim that his then-attorney never told him about a nine-year plea offer. During the hearing, the magistrate judge heard conflicting testimony. The judge found the attorney’s version of events to be generally “consistent and credible” and, based on these findings, denied the section 2255 motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the magistrate judge’s determination was not clearly erroneous. View "Rivera-Rivera v. United States" on Justia Law

In the 1945 case Crespo v. United States, the First Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. 2421(a), which prohibits transportation of an individual “in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States” for purposes of prostitution or other unlawful sexual activity, applies to transportation that occurs solely within Puerto Rico. Since that case was decided, Puerto Rico has transformed from a United States territory to a self-governing Commonwealth. Defendant, who transported a woman within Puerto Rico with the intent to engage in sexual activity that was criminal under Puerto Rico law, dismissed the indictment against him, arguing that transportation occurring solely within Puerto Rico no longer violates section 2421(a). The district court agreed with Defendant and dismissed the indictment. The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the indictment, holding that section 2421(a) does not extend to illicit transportation that occurs solely within Puerto Rico and instead reaches only transportation “in interstate or foreign commerce” with respect to the island. View "United States v. Maldonado-Burgos" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of making false statements in a passport application, aggravated identity theft, and use of a falsely-obtained Social Security account number to obtain benefits. The district court sentenced Defendant to an aggregated sentence of thirty-six months of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, challenging his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly applied the four-level enhancement as to the making false statements in a passport application count; and (2) Defendant’s argument challenging his conviction for aggravated identity theft is foreclosed by binding circuit precedent. View "United States v. Nolte" on Justia Law

On three occasions, Defendant sold heroin to a person surreptitiously cooperating with the federal government. Defendant was charged with three counts of possessing heroin with intent to distribute. A jury subsequently found Defendant guilty on all three counts. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to charge the jury on entrapment; (2) the district court did not plainly err in directing defense counsel to follow through on counsel’s volunteered commitment to advise the prosecutor about Defendant’s intent to mention entrapment in his opening statement; (3) Defendant was not prejudiced by the Government’s delayed disclosure of certain evidence; and (4) Defendant was lawfully sentenced as a career offender. View "United States v. Montoya" on Justia Law

Defendants, who previously served as high-ranking officials in the Massachusetts Office of the Commissioner of Probation (OCP), were convicted for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) violations, RICO conspiracy, and mail fraud based on their roles in a hiring scheme at the OCP. The First Circuit reversed the convictions and ordered the entry of judgments of acquittal, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions because the Government failed to demonstrate the the conduct of these Massachusetts state officials satisfied the appropriate criminal statutes. Specifically, the Government overstepped its authority in using federal criminal statutes to police the hiring practices of Defendants. View "United States v. Tavares" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony and possessing a machine gun. Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of sixty-five months. In Defendant’s prior appeal, the First Circuit vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. After Defendant’s sentencing hearing on remand, the district court imposed a variant sentence of sixty months' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant identified no basis for vacating the sentence, that the district court’s reasoning was sufficient to justify the variance, and that the variance was not imposed in error. View "United States v. Santa-Otero" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to production of child pornography. Defendant’s plea agreement contained a knowing and voluntary waiver of any right to appeal his sentence. Defendant appealed, challenging certain special conditions of supervised release imposed in connection with his guilty plea. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the majority of Defendant’s sentence, holding that, with respect to all but one of the challenged conditions, Defendant fell short of establishing that the enforcement of the appellate waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice; but (2) vacated the portion of the condition that authorized penile plethysmograph (PPG) testing, holding that enforcement of Defendant’s appellate waiver with respect to the PPG testing requirement would result in a miscarriage of justice. View "United States v. Berrios-Cruz" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute, and possess with the intent to distribute, controlled substances. The presentence report attributed 1,451.7 kilograms of synthetic cannabinoid product to Defendant, an amount Defendant did not contest. At issue during the sentencing hearing was whether Defendant’s product was most similar to THC or marihuana. The district court ruled that THC was the appropriate comparator drug. Because one kilogram of THC is equivalent to 167 kilograms of marihuana under the Guidelines, the district court found that Defendant was responsible for 242,434 kilograms of marihuana. The district court ultimately imposed a sentence of 114 months. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence, holding (1) there was no plain error in the district court’s conclusion that THC was the proper comparator for the synthetic cannabinoids Defendant possessed; and (2) the district court correctly applied the 1:167 multiplier listed in the Guidelines and calculated the recommended sentence. View "United States v. Hurley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in a Massachusetts state court, Appellant was convicted of unarmed robbery. The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Appellant’s claim that certain identification procedures violated his constitutional rights. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to set aside his conviction, arguing that the trial court violated his due process rights by admitting certain identification evidence at his trial. The federal district court denied Appellant’s habeas petition, and the First Circuit granted a certificate of appealability. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s petition, holding that the Appeals Court did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent in rejecting Appellant’s claim that the pre-trial identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive. View "Moore v. Dickhaut" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of Hobbs Act extortion, tax fraud, and making false statements to obtain federal worker’s compensation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress incriminating statements she made during her interview with two sheriff’s deputies because the statements were obtained through a custodial interrogation without the benefit of a Miranda warning and that her confession was involuntary. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not subjected to a custodial interrogation, and therefore, it was not necessary to provide her with Miranda warnings; and (2) Defendant’s statements were voluntary. View "United States v. Swan" on Justia Law