Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to eight counts of wire fraud and seven counts of mail fraud for sending fraudulent invoices appearing to be sent by a legitimate trade association to thousands of businesses, which unwittingly sent “membership dues” to Defendant. The district court determined that Defendant’s scheme had an intended loss of between $400,000 and $1 million and 250 or more victims. These determinations increased Defendant’s sentencing range under the Guidelines, and Defendant was sentenced to forty-eight months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the mailings intercepted by postal inspectors and the district court’s sentencing determination. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the search of Defendant’s P.O. Box and the seizure of mailings were not unreasonable, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; and (2) the district court did not clearly err in its loss calculation. View "United States v. Stokes" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine. The district court sentenced Defendant within the Guidelines sentencing range to 170 months’ imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no variance between the indictment’s charge and the government’s proof; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a sting “transaction” that occurred after the indictment issued; (3) the district court’s application of the sentencing statute did not require reversal; and (4) Defendant failed to carry his burden of showing that his sentence was either substantively or procedurally unreasonable. View "United States v. Ortiz-Islas" on Justia Law

Appellant conceded that he violated the conditions of his release by committing an offense involving possession of a firearm. The district court imposed a sentence of thirty-six months’ imprisonment, which was six months more than the high end of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range and twelve months more than the government’s recommendation. Appellant appealed, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court, holding (1) in crafting Appellant’s sentence, the sentencing court cited and relied upon a fact that was demonstrably false; and (2) Appellant’s substantial rights were affected by the error. Remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Melendez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to a federal indictment charging him with possession of a firearm and ammunition by an unlawful user of a controlled substance and possession of a machine-gun. Before sentencing, the probation department prepared a presentence investigation report (the PSI report) that contained information about Defendant’s participation in a musical group that recorded songs that promote violence and drugs. Defendant objected to the PSI report on the ground that consideration of his performances with the musical group would violate his First Amendment rights. The sentencing court ruled that it could consider Defendant’s musical pursuits in deciding the sentence and then sentenced Defendant to a ninety-six-month term of immurement, which was more than three times the top of the Guidelines Sentencing Range. The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the sentencing court’s sentencing rationale was implausible because the court heavily relied on protected conduct that was not tied through extrinsic evidence to any relevant sentencing factor. View "United States v. Alvarez-Nunez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted under a Massachusetts statute of possessing child pornography as a repeat offender. The Massachusetts Appeals Court (MAC) affirmed. Defendant later filed a petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s claim that possession falls within the protection of the First Amendment when the photograph depicts a merely nude minor but is not an expression of lewdness was unavailing; (2) the MAC did not act contrary to or unreasonably apply clear law as declared by the Supreme Court or apply it to facts and factual inferences not reasonably supported by the evidence; and (3) the certificate of appealability the district court granted Defendant did not extend to a claim that the evidence was inadequate to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the offense. View "Sullivan v. Marchilli" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of aiding and abetting an armed robbery affecting interstate commerce in violation of the Hobbs Act, using a firearm in connection with the robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The First Circuit affirmed on appeal. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255, alleging that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. Appellant argued, inter alia, that counsel was ineffective for failing to move for acquittal on the Hobbs Act charge based on the insufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit granted a certificate of appealability only on the issue of counsel’s failure to move for acquittal on the Hobbs Act charge. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, even assuming that counsel’s failure to move for acquittal on the Hobbs Act charge was deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington, Appellant failed to establish that he was prejudiced thereby. View "Rivera-Rivera v. United States" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of drug conspiracy charges and imprisoned for almost four years. The charges also led to Appellant’s forfeiture of two trucks and a boat. A previous panel of the First Circuit reversed the conviction, concluding that the charges were not supported by the evidence. Thereafter, Appellant filed a civil suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging, among other claims, malicious prosecution, false arrest and imprisonment, and the unlawful deprivation of his property. The district court denied relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant’s challenges to the district court’s rejection of his claims failed. View "Paret-Ruiz v. United States" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The agreement memorialized a joint sentencing recommendation of seventy-two months’ incarceration. At sentencing, the parties requested that the district court impose the agreed sentence. The court instead sentenced Appellant to the upwardly variant term of incarceration of ninety months. On appeal, Appellant challenged his sentence, arguing both procedural and substantive error. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant’s sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Bermudez-Melendez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to transportation of a minor with the intent that she engage in prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(a). The plea agreement contained a joint recommendation that Defendant be sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment and also contained a waiver-of-appeal clause. Defendant appealed, arguing that the application of section 2423(a) to conduct wholly within Puerto Rico exceeds Congress’s legislative authority under the Commerce Clause. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that Defendant waived this argument by entering the unconditional guilty plea and executing the waiver-of-appeal clause. View "United States v. Carrasquillo-Penaloza" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to two counts of sexual exploitation of children. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in determining that he was not entitled to raise a “mistake of age” defense and in denying his motion to suppress evidence found in connection with a search of his motel room. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) plainly does not require that a person convicted of violating the statute needs to know the actual age of the minor victim, the limited scienter requirements of section 2251(a) do not violate the over breadth doctrine, and the mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years for violation of the statute is not grossly disproportionate; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law