Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance (oxycodone) and distribution of that controlled substance. The district court imposed a bottom-of-the-range sentence of a fifty-seven-month term of immurement for each count, to be served concurrently. Defendant appealed, arguing that the sentencing court made an erroneous drug-quantity determination and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence, holding (1) the sentencing court’s drug-quantity calculation was not in error; and (2) Appellant’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence was unavailing. View "United States v. Demers" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a machine gun. After a sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a thirty-six-month incarcerate sentence. Defendant appealed, alleging that the government violated the plea agreement by seeking an upward variance from the jointly-stipulated base offense level and that the district court abused its discretion in deviating from the guideline range in imposing his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) because the prosecutor adhered to the terms of the agreement with Defendant, there was no basis to vacate his sentence based on the alleged breach; and (2) the court’s imposition of a thirty-six-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Cruz-Vazquez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of conspiracy and embezzlement from a federal funded organization for using his political clout to divert federal funds granted to a state agency. The district court sentenced Defendant to serve concurrent terms of immurement and to make restitution in the amount of $688,772. The court later ordered Defendant to forfeit an additional $1,382,214. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence and vacated the forfeiture order, holding (1) Defendant’s challenges to his conviction were without merit; (2) Defendant’s claims of sentencing error were unavailing; and (3) the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the forfeiture order. Remanded so that, once jurisdiction has reattached, the district court may again address the question of forfeiture. View "United States v. George" on Justia Law