Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2002, Appellant entered a guilty plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, to four counts of conspiracy to commit, and aiding and abetting, insurance and mail fraud. In 2011, Appellant consulted an immigration attorney to apply for naturalization. The attorney informed Appellant that his guilty plea barred him from becoming a United States citizen and that he was subject to mandatory removal based on his conviction. Appellant brought a petition for a writ of coram nobis, arguing that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by erroneously advising him that a probation sentence from his guilty plea would not affect his immigration status and that the prosecutor provided a similar assurance during plea negotiations. The district court denied the petition, concluding (1) Appellant’s Sixth Amendment claim was barred because its success depended on the retroactive application of Padilla v. Kentucky, and Padilla did not apply retroactively to Appellant’s claim in light of Chaidez v. United States; and (2) Appellant’s claim against the prosecutor lacked merit. The First Circuit vacated and remanded the claim, holding (1) Appellant’s claim against the prosecutor indeed lacked merit; but (2) Appellant’s Sixth Amendment claim was not barred by the retroactivity doctrine. Remanded. View "United States v. Castro-Taveras" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit arson, wire fraud, mail fraud, and theft of government funds. The convictions stemmed from Defendant’s participation in a scheme to burn down a tenement house that he owned so that he could recover the insurance proceeds. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) any error on the part of the district court in conducting a portion of a Daubert hearing in Defendant’s absence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the district court did not prejudicially err in permitting Count I of the superseding indictment to be altered post-trial; and (3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to substitute counsel at sentencing. View "United States v. Karmue" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted on one count under 18 U.S.C. 1344, the Bank Fraud Act, for knowingly executing and attempting to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud a federally-insured financial institution and to obtain money and other property under the custody or control of the financial institution by means of false and fraudulent pretenses concerning matters in conjunction with a mortgage loan. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the government presented sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction View "United States v. O'Donnell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in a Massachusetts state court, Appellant was found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and other offenses. The appeals court affirmed. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that the state courts failed to apply the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Snyder v. Massachusetts and violated his due process and equal protection rights in denying his request to be present during the jury view of the crime scene. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the appeals court’s decision did not contradict, nor was it an unreasonable application of, Snyder. View "Hyatt v. Gelb" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base. In sentencing Appellant, the district court departed downward and imposed a ninety-seven-month incarcerative sentence. Appellant appealed his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the sentencing court did not err when it applied a three-level enhancement for Appellant’s leadership role in the conspiracy; (2) the sentencing court did not commit clear error in imposing a two-level weapons enhancement for Appellant’s possession of a firearm during and in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime; and (3) Appellant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Nunez" on Justia Law

After Defendant was intercepted in a thirty-foot vessel by the United States Coast Guard, the Coast Guard found approximately 144 kilograms of cocaine onboard. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment of 108 months. In so doing, the district court adopted a two-level pilot-navigator enhancement, finding that Defendant navigated the vessel under the circumstances. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court’s interpretation and application of the sentencing enhancement, which applies if the defendant “acted as a pilot, copilot, captain, navigator, flight officer, or any other operation officer” on a vessel carrying controlled substances. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in ruling that Defendant acted as a “navigator” within the meaning of the enhancement. View "United States v. Trinidad" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy, manufacturing over 100 marijuana plants, maintaining a residence for marijuana manufacturing, and possessing a firearm as a felony. The district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months’ imprisonment followed by eight years of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) even if the superseding indictment violated the principles outlined in Alleyne v. United States, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the district court erred in admitting hearsay testimony under the exception for statements in furtherance of a conspiracy, but this error did not warrant reversal; (3) any error in the admission of other testimony was harmless; and (4) Defendant’s sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. View "United States v. Ford" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of manufacturing marijuana. Defendant was sentenced to twelve months and one day of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, raising several procedural challenges and arguing that there was insufficient evidence presented to prove that the marijuana found by the police belonged to him. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Government’s evidence was strong enough for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the marijuana at issue belonged to Defendant; (2) the district court did to err in denying Defendant’s suppression motion without an evidentiary hearing; (3) the Government did not violate Defendant’s right to a speedy trial; and (4) the trial court did not err in denying Defendants’ motions for mistrial. View "United States v. Apicelli" on Justia Law

In 2014, four residents of the City of Cranston, Rhode Island, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island filed a complaint against the City under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that Cranston’s 2012 Redistricting Plan violated the Equal Protection Clause. The district court entered an injunction prohibiting Cranston from holding elections, concluding that the inclusion in the Redistricting Plan of 3,433 inmates of the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) in the population count of Cranston’s Ward Six diluted the votes of voters in the City’s other five wards. The First Circuit reversed and instructed the district court to enter summary judgment in favor of Cranston, holding that the United States Constitution does not require Cranston to exclude the ACI inmates from its apportionment process and gives no power to the federal courts to interfere with Cranston’s decision to include them. View "Davidson v. City of Cranston, R.I." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to possess illegal drugs with intent to distribute and with using or carrying a firearm in furtherance of the conspiracy. Defendant was sentenced to thirty-three months’ imprisonment for the drug count and sixty consecutive months for the weapons count. Here Defendant sought to vacate his guilty plea and his sentence, raising two claims of error. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s plea on the weapons charge was both knowing and rooted in a factual basis; and (2) the district court did not err in calculating Defendant’s Guidelines sentencing range. View "United States v. Delgado-Lopez" on Justia Law