Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant, a police officer with the Puerto Rico Police Department, pleaded guilty to making a false declaration to a federal grand jury. In the plea agreement, the parties jointly calculated a guideline sentence range of forty-six to fifty-seven months. The district court sentenced Defendant to forty-six months of imprisonment, thus denying Defendant’s request for a downward variance. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of a downward variance. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court’s failure to grant a downward variance did not render Defendant’s sentence substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Caraballo" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in federal district court, Defendant was convicted of sex trafficking and transporting minors to engage in prostitution. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s argument that the indictment was defective based on its failure to allege facts to support the aiding and abetting charges failed because Defendant could not show plain error and because any error would be harmless; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence from the victim’s cell phone; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for production of classified Department of Children and Families records that would purportedly show that the victim had previously offered men sex in exchange for a place to stay; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that Defendant had prostituted and physically abused another woman; (5) the government did not commit misconduct in its closing argument by impermissibly commenting on Defendant’s failure to take the stand; and (6) the district court did not commit plain error in instructing the jury regarding the knowledge requirement of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a). View "United States v. Gemma" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a police officer, during the course of a Terry stop, conducted a pat-frisk of a fanny pack that Defendant was wearing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the facts were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Defendant was armed and dangerous, and therefore, the law enforcement officer was justified in touching the fanny pack. View "United States v. Cardona-Vicente" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of conspiring to smuggle narcotics into the United States. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 claiming that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to advise him of his right to testify on his own behalf. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. After such a hearing, the district court again rejected the section 2255 petition. The First Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate Petitioner’s conviction and sentence, holding that the district court erred by not granting Petitioner’s section 2255 petition, as Petitioner received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel at his criminal trial, and he was prejudiced as a result. View "Casiano-Jimenez v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two conspiracies - conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances within 1,000 feet of public housing and conspiracy to import controlled substances from the Dominican Republic. Defendant was sentenced to 288 months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute various controlled substances, concurrent with a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment for the importation conspiracy. Defendant appealed, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and that the district judge was required to recuse himself. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant received constitutionally effective assistance of counsel; and (2) the district court did not err when he denied Defendant’s motion to recuse. View "United States v. Torres-Estrada" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two conspiracies - conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances within 1,000 feet of public housing and conspiracy to import controlled substances from the Dominican Republic. Defendant was sentenced to 288 months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute various controlled substances, concurrent with a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment for the importation conspiracy. Defendant appealed, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and that the district judge was required to recuse himself. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant received constitutionally effective assistance of counsel; and (2) the district court did not err when he denied Defendant’s motion to recuse. View "United States v. Torres-Estrada" on Justia Law

Appellant was found to be in violation of the conditions of his supervised release. The guideline sentencing range for this offense was six to twelve months, but the district court sentenced Appellant to a sixty-month term of immurement - the statutory maximum for the supervised release violation. The district court failed to coherently explain its dramatic upward variance. The First Circuit vacated Appellant’s sixty-month sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court committed clear and obvious error by failing adequately to explain its sharp upward variance, and that error may well have affected Appellant’s substantial rights. View "United States v. Montero-Montero" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to suppress (1) evidence obtained after a stop and frisk of Defendant; and (2) Defendant’s statement that he was “drug dealer” in answer to the booking officer’s question about his employment. The First Circuit affirmed the trial judge’s refusal to suppress the incriminating evidence and comment, holding (1) there was no constitutional violation in the stop and frisk of Defendant; and (2) the booking exception to Miranda applied to the employment question asked of Defendant. View "United States v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of multiple crimes arising from his roles as the supplier to, part-owner of, and lessor of a drug-distribution network. The First Circuit reduced Appellant’s convictions to convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting the distribution of drugs, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing. Upon resentencing, the district court sentenced Appellant at the top of, but within the guideline sentencing range, imposing a 151-month term of immurement on each count of conviction, to run concurrently. Appellant appealed, raising multiple claims of sentencing error. The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s sentence, holding that Appellant’s claims were both unpreserved and unpersuasive. View "United States v. Sepulveda-Hernandez" on Justia Law

In a criminal prosecution in a New York district court, a federal grand jury indicted Appellant on drug-trafficking and money laundering charges. Appellant pleaded guilty to money laundering violations. The government, meanwhile, instituted a forfeiture action in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico to litigate forfeiture issues related to the criminal charges. The government asserted that several parcels of real estate and Appellant’s interests in certain businesses were forfeitable but did not mention Appellant’s interest in a professional basketball team (the Franchise). The parties eventually reached a settlement, but the settlement agreement did not mention the Franchise. Years later, Appellant filed this motion for execution of judgment seeking compensation for the government’s alleged seizure of the franchise ancillary to the criminal case. The government alleged that it had never seized the franchise. The district court denied Appellant’s motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish that the Franchise was seized. View "United States v. Rivera-Ortiz" on Justia Law