Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances within 1,000 feet of property comprising a school, public housing project, and/or playground. The district court sentenced Defendant to 300 months’ imprisonment. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss or withdraw his guilty plea based on his earlier retained defense counsel’s purported conflict of interest. Defendant then filed a nunc pro tunc motion to set aside judgment, annul all proceedings, and dismiss the indictments based on post-judgment arguments. Both motions were denied. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the district court’s rejection of Defendant’s claim concerning his former counsel’s purported conflict of interest, holding that the district court properly concluded that there was no conflict and that Defendant was not prejudiced by his former counsel’s representation; and (2) dismissed Defendant’s appeal that stemmed from the rejection of his post-judgment claims, as they were not properly before the district court. View "United States v. Martinez-Hernandez" on Justia Law

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