Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction for carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2119. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s actions were sufficient to allow a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant actually intended to cause harm if that were necessary to steal the car; (2) the district court did not err by admitting Defendant’s confession and finding that it was voluntarily given; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give a proposed supplemental jury instruction; and (4) Defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the admission of an in-court witness identification. View "United States v. Diaz-Rosado" on Justia Law

First Circuit rejects Double Jeopardy challenge to second indictment for cocaine smuggling.On August 15, 2013, Díaz was indicted in the Southern District of Florida for his role in planning and organizing a maritime smuggling operation involving over 1,000 kilograms of cocaine. Five days later, Díaz was indicted in the District of Puerto Rico -- for his role in planning and organizing a maritime smuggling operation involving over 1,000 kilograms of cocaine. The First Circuit rejected his argument that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred his prosecution on the Puerto Rico charges because the Florida charges already encompass the conduct for which he was indicted in Puerto Rico. While the places involved and the two statutory provisions under which Díaz was charged were the same, the lower court concluded that the conspiracies charged in the two indictments were separate ones insofar as the conduct charged in the two indictments involved distinct time periods, personnel, and evidence. View "United States v. Diaz-Rosado" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the revocation of his supervised release and the imposition of a term of imprisonment of twenty-four-months. During Defendant’s period of supervised release for his conviction of conspiracy to bring unauthorized aliens into the United States without going through an authorized port of entry, U.S. Coast Guard personnel interdicted Defendant’s boat off the coast of the Dominican Republic and discovered cocaine. Defendant was then charged with importing and conspiracy to import and possess, with intent to distribute, controlled substances on board a vessel subject to United States jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in admitting hearsay evidence in the form of two Coast Guard officers’ statements; and (2) did not err in finding that Defendant violated his supervised release terms. View "United States v. Bueno-Beltran" on Justia Law

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