Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiring to distribute cocaine and one count of possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Defendant was sentenced to two concurrent 168-month prison sentences for his convictions. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence for the drug conspiracy count but vacated the sentence for the firearm count, holding (1) the plea agreement’s waiver-of-appeal provision does not bar appellate consideration of Defendant’s challenges to his sentence; (2) the sentence Defendant received on the drug conspiracy conviction was not unreasonable; but (3) the sentence for the firearm count must be vacated because it exceeds the statutory maximum penalty for that count. Remanded. View "United States v. Milan-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to armed bank robbery and related firearm charges. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of a residence by police. At issue on appeal was whether the police had a reasonable belief that another man, Tommy Smith, lived at and would be present at the residence when they entered the residence in order to execute an arrest warrant for Smith. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that it was reasonable for the police to believe that Smith lived at the residence and that he would be there at the time of the police entry. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of participating in a conspiracy to import five or more kilograms of cocaine into the customs territory of the United States arising from his role in a scheme to fly drug shipments from the Dominican Republic to Puerto Rico. Appellant was sentenced to serve a 235-month term of immurement. Appellant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, a prejudicial variance occurred, the admission of certain coconspirator statements was improper, and that errors occurring during his sentencing. The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s conviction and sentence, holding that his claims of error were largely unpreserved and wholly unpersuasive. Remanded for the district court to consider a sentence reduction under a recent amendment to the sentencing guidelines. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Milian" on Justia Law

Darlene Ford, her husband James Ford, and their two adult sons were all sentenced to prison for running an illicit, indoor marijuana farm. Among other crimes, the government indicted Darlene for letting James use her semi-automatic rifle for target practice. Specifically, Darlene was indicted of aiding and abetting a felon’s possession of a firearm. After a second jury trial, Darlene was convicted of several drug-related crimes and of the aiding and abetting charge. Darlene appealed her aiding and abetting conviction and her sentence, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could convict her if she “knew or had reason to know” that James had previously been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison. The First Circuit (1) vacated Darlene’s conviction on the aiding and abetting count, holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the state of mind element of the aiding and abetting offense, and the error was not harmless; and (2) Darlene’s sentence was substantively reasonable. Remanded. View "United States v. Ford" on Justia Law

In 2007, Appellant was convicted of attempted gross sexual assault and solicitation of a child by computer. Thereafter, Appellant was convicted for failing to register as a sex offender. In 2012, Appellant pleaded guilty to charges in federal district court arising from his failure to register as a sex offender in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). In 2014, Appellant pleaded guilty in federal district court to violating the conditions of supervised release imposed on him due to his SORNA violation. Appellant was sentenced to a term of incarceration and a term of supervised release subject to a number of conditions. Appellant appealed the conditions that he participate in sex offender treatment and undergo random periodic polygraph exams if required by the therapeutic program. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of sex offender treatment and polygraph examination, holding that those conditions were warranted by Appellant’s individual characteristics and were necessary to achieve the goals of supervised release. View "United States v. Webster" on Justia Law

For aliens who have committed certain criminal or terrorist offenses, removal proceedings are mandatory under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c). Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, committed such offenses. After being released from criminal custody, Petitioner was detained under section 1226(c) pending immigration removal proceedings without bond and without an individualized showing that he posed a flight risk or danger to society. After eight months of detention, Petitioner filed a class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated noncitizens held for more than six months. The district court granted the habeas petition, concluding that section 1226(c) contains an implicit reasonableness requirement and that any detention under section 1226(c) is presumptively unreasonable after six months. The court found that Petitioner’s specific detention had become unreasonable and ordered bond hearings for all class members. The First Circuit (1) vacated the judgment as to the class members, holding that section 1226(c) does contain an implicit reasonableness requirement, but an individualized reasonableness inquiry adheres more closely to legal precedent than a bright-line six-month rule; and (2) affirmed the district court’s individualized holding with respect to Petitioner’s particular habeas petition. Remanded. View "Reid v. Donelan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of thirteen counts - including wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering - for participating in a multi-million dollar investment fraud. The district court imposed a below-guidelines, 102-month prison sentence. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding (1) the decision of the Croatian Ministry of Justice clearly authorized Defendant’s extradition on all counts charged in the indictment; (2) venue was proper in the District of Massachusetts for the money laundering count; (3) the district court did not commit error at trial that required Defendant’s convictions to be vacated; and (4) Defendant’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Georgiadis" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to violating the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. The district court sentenced Defendant to thirty months in prison and five years of supervised release with special conditions. The conditions restricted Defendant’s association with minors and required him to participate in a sex offender treatment program and submit to polygraph testing. Defendant appealed, challenging the conditions as unreasonable in violation of 18 U.S.C. 3583(d). Defendant also raised several other claims for the first time on appeal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that in light of Defendant’s substantial criminal history and the district court’s ample explanation for the conditions imposed, the court did not exceed its sentencing discretion or commit plain error in sentencing Defendant. View "United States v. Pabon" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. In keeping with the plea agreement, both parties recommended that the district court impose a low-end Guidelines sentence of thirty months. The district court, however, sentenced Defendant to an upwardly variant sixty-month term of imprisonment. Defendant moved for reconsideration. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in imposing his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant’s upwardly variant sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Pedroza-Orengo" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to carjacking and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. The district court imposed a total sentence of 360 months’ imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived his right to bring his claim asking the Court to vacate his guilty plea to Count I of the indictment because the indictment omitted an element of the crime for which he was charged; (2) Defendant’s argument that his guilty plea should be vacated based on the district court’s alleged violations of various Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 requirements at his plea colloquy failed either because there was no error at all or because Defendant could not show prejudice; and (3) Defendant’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Urbina-Robles" on Justia Law