Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant appealed the sentence imposed for his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. After Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense, the district court sentenced him to ten years, the statutory maximum. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding (1) the offense-level increases were not invalid under any of the arguments set forth by Appellant; (2) Appellant’s sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable; and (3) Appellant’s claim that his lawyer erred by not advising him to back out of his plea agreement was not appropriately raised on direct review. View "United States v. Lasalle-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

While they were investigating a suspected drug-trafficking operation, federal DEA agents made a warrantless entry into an apartment that, as it turned out, served as a stash house for a second, more substantial, drug-trafficking operation. Defendant, a participant in the second drug-trafficking operation, was charged with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence gathered from the apartment. The district court denied the motion, concluding that probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the record supported the district court’s determination that the combination of probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the DEA agents’ warrantless entry into the apartment. View "United States v. Almonte-Baez" on Justia Law

Appellant entered guilty pleas to possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute and possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The district court sentenced Appellant to a total incarcerative sentence of 162 months. Appellant appealed, challenging his sentence as both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding (1) Appellant’s appeal was not within the scope of the waiver of appeal to which Appellant agreed; (2) the sentence was not procedurally unreasonable; and (3) the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Sanchez-Colberg" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a straight guilty plea to possession of firearms by a convicted felon and possession of machine guns for possessing two seized firearms. The sentencing court considered the second firearm as an aggravating factor in imposing an upwardly variant sentence of seventy-two months. Appellant challenged his sentence on appeal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in taking the second gun into account as part of the factors to be considered at sentencing; (2) the sentencing court adequately explained its reasons for imposing the upward variance; and (3) Defendant’s seventy-two-month sentence did not fall outside the expansive universe of substantively reasonable sentences. View "United States v. Matos-De-Jesus" on Justia Law

When the five defendants in this case failed to pass the required exams to obtain their medical licenses, they gained certification by obtaining falsified scores. All five defendants were indicted for conspiracy to commit honest-services mail fraud, money or property mail fraud, and aggravated identity theft. The First Circuit affirmed Defendants’ convictions for honest-services mail fraud conspiracy but reversed the convictions for money or property mail fraud and aggravated identity theft, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for conspiracy to commit honest-services mail fraud but insufficient evidence to support both Defendants’ convictions for money or property mail fraud and the identity theft convictions. View "United States v. Berroa" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the district court’s imposition of a two-year sentence imposed following the revocation of a term of supervised release. Specifically, Appellant argued that the district court erred in (1) stating that it had granted Appellant “two previous opportunities” to “get his act together,” and (2) imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the court’s characterization of the outcome of a hearing as an “opportunity” afforded to Appellant; and (2) Appellant’s two-year sentence, though severe, did not fall outside the boundaries of the range of reasonable sentences. View "United States v. Soto-Soto" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a straight plea to illegal possession of a machine gun. The district judge sentenced Appellant to forty-eight months’ imprisonment followed by thirty-six months’ supervised release. On appeal, Appellant challenged the reasonableness of his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in not applying, sua sponte, an additional one-level reduction to Appellant’s total offense level for acceptance of responsibility; (2) the district court’s decision to impose a forty-eight-month sentence was not in error; and (3) Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim could not be addressed on direct appeal. View "United States v. Fuentes-Echevarria" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to three charges related to his act of possessing guns and drugs while he was on supervised release. The federal district court denied Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea that he filed seven months after he pleaded guilty. The district court sentenced Appellant to a total of seventy-six months for the three charges. The court sentenced Appellant to an additional twenty-four months, to be served consecutively to his seventy-six-month sentence, for violating the conditions of his supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to change his plea; and (2) Appellant’s 100-month sentence was procedurally reasonable. View "United States v. Fernandez-Santos" on Justia Law

Appellant challenged the seventy-month prison sentence he received after pleading guilty in federal district court, pursuant to a plea agreement, to aiding and abetting a convicted felon in the possession of a firearm. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to demonstrate that plain error occurred in the classification of his prior convictions as convictions that trigger the application of U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(1)(B); and (2) no plain error occurred in the district court’s consideration of the mitigating factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). View "United States v. Nieves-Borrero" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense (Count 1) and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances (Count 5). The district court sentenced Defendant to eighty-four months’ imprisonment for Count 1 and to forty-one months for Count 5. The sentences were to be served consecutively, for a total of 125 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence, holding that the sentence “reside[d] within the expansive universe of reasonable sentences.” View "United States v. Vazquez" on Justia Law