Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment of sixty months. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition and erred in classifying his prior convictions and convictions of a crime of violence for purposes of calculating his base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress but vacated the remanded for resentencing proceedings, holding (1) there was no unlawful seizure at the time that Defendant contended one occurred, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; and (2) the district court’s application of the sentencing enhancement set forth in U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(2) was erroneous. View "United States v. Fields" on Justia Law

Michael McLaughlin, James Fitzpatrick, and Bernard Morosco, all of whom worked for a public agency responsible for providing low-income housing, were indicted for knowingly and unlawfully conspiring to defraud the United States and its agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. McLaughlin pleaded guilty. After a jury trial, Fitzpatrick and Morosco were found guilty as charged. Fitzpatrick and Morosco appealed, raising a number of arguments. The First Circuit affirmed Fitzpatrick’s conviction and sentence, denied as moot Fitzpatrick’s earlier-filed motion asking the Court to stay his sentence pending appeal, and affirmed Morosco’s conviction, holding that Defendants were not entitled to relief on any of their arguments. View "United States v. Morosco" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to possession of ammunition by a felon. The district court sentenced Defendant to a 216-month incarcerative term followed by five years of supervised release. Defendant was sentenced as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on his criminal history. The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s guidelines sentence, holding (1) Defendant’s convictions for possession with intent to distribute and assault with a dangerous weapon qualify as predicates under the ACCA; but (2) the district court failed to calculate correctly Defendant’s guidelines sentencing range. Remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Hudson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree in exchange for the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to revise or revoke under Mass. R. Crim. P. 29, to no avail. After unsuccessfully seeking relief in state courts, Defendant filed a federal habeas petition alleging that his trial counsel was deficient for allegedly inducing him to plead guilty on the assurance that he would be able to reduce his sentence through the Rule 29 process. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The First Circuit upheld the determination that Defendant’s petition was untimely but remanded for consider as to whether the running of the limitations period should should be tolled on equitable grounds. On remand, the district court found equitable tolling unwarranted and denied habeas relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Defendant failed to satisfied the two necessary conditions for equitable tolling. View "Holmes v. Spencer" on Justia Law

When he was arrested, Defendant confessed to allegations that he engaged in conduct sufficient to support convictions for the coercion and enticement of a minor and the sexual exploitation of a child. During a change-of-plea hearing before the district court at which Defendant pled guilty to the charges against him, he again confessed to the allegations against him. Defendant later filed two motions to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court denied both motions. The district court subsequently sentenced Defendant to twenty-one years in prison. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motions to withdraw his plea; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Dunfee" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a guilty plea to several criminal counts related to his role in a cocaine-smuggling venture. The district court calculated Defendant’s guidelines sentencing range (GSR) as 135-168 months and imposed a sentence of 135 months. Defendant appealed, challenging both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to a reduction in his GSR to compensate for his role in the offense; (2) the district court’s explanation for its imposition of Defendant’s sentence was sufficient; (3) Defendant’s sentence was proportionate; and (4) Defendant's within-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

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