Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2010, Appellant pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute between fifteen and fifty kilograms of cocaine. Consistent with the parties’ joint recommendation, the district court sentenced Appellant to 180 months’ imprisonment. In 2014, Appellant filed a motion to reduce his sentence, citing an April 2014 amendment to the sentencing guidelines that was given retroactive effect. The amendment reduced the base offense level for certain drug crimes by two levels. Five days after the amendment’s effective date, the Puerto Rico District Court issued an administrative directive under which all motions to reduce sentence based on the amendment are automatically referred to a magistrate judge for initial screening. In the instant case, the district judge sua sponte denied Appellant’s motion before the magistrate judge had the opportunity to make an eligibility determination. Appellant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court failed to apply its own administrative directive. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s orders denying Appellant’s motion to reduce sentence, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, remand to the district court for it to apply its administrative directive was the appropriate course. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Rosado" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The plea agreement included a provision titled “Waiver of Appeal.” The district court accepted Defendant’s plea and sentenced him to 132 months in prison. Defendant appealed, challenging the reasonableness of his sentence. With regard to the waiver provision Defendant argued that the provision did not apply to this appeal and, alternatively, that enforcing it “would work a miscarriage of justice.” The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that Defendant’s waiver was both valid and enforceable and, therefore, the Court’s consideration of this appeal on the merits was barred. View "United States v. Morales-Arroyo" on Justia Law

The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) requires mandatory sentences for recidivist criminals with three or more convictions for crimes committed on different occasions that qualify as predicate offenses. Defendant pled guilty to possessing ammunition as a felon. In addition to two ACCA-qualifying Maine burglary convictions, Defendant had on his record a 2001 Maine robbery conviction and a 2004 Maine drug-trafficking conviction. The district judge applied an ACCA enhancement and sentenced Defendant to the statutory minimum of fifteen years in jail. The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that neither Defendant’s robbery conviction nor his drug-trafficking conviction qualified as an ACCA predicate. Remanded for resentencing without the ACCA enhancement. View "United States v. Mulkern" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. The district court imposed a total prison sentence of forty-six months, at the lower end of the United States Sentencing Guidelines imprisonment range. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court’s application of a two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err by applying the two-level enhancement for the possession of a dangerous weapon, and therefore, Defendant’s guideline sentencing range was properly calculated; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute. The district court imposed a total prison sentence of 120 months months and five years’ supervised release. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court committed procedural and substantive errors in calculating his sentence for the firearms count. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that the district court erred either substantively or procedurally. View "United States v. Millan-Roman" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 280 grams of cocaine base and aiding and abetting in the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The district court sentenced Appellant to a top-of-the-range incarcerative term on count one and the mandatory minimum incarcerative term on count two. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. On appeal, Appellant challenged his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in its choice of a criminal history category; and (2) the district court did not misapply the sentencing guidelines in determining that Appellant’s sentence should be imposed consecutively to his undischarged state sentence. View "United States v. Roman-Diaz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, and other charges related to his membership in a crime syndicate. Defendant appealed, raising fifteen claims of error. The First Circuit affirmed, holding, inter alia, (1) Defendant failed to meet his burden of showing grand jury abuse by the government; (2) the government did not improperly join certain charges; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (4) there was no violation of Defendant’s right to conflict-free counsel; (5) the district court did not violate Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to participate in his own defense; (6) the district court did not violate Defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause; (7) there was no evidentiary error; (8) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (9) Defendant failed to show plain error in his claims of prosecutorial misconduct; and (10) the court properly sentenced Defendant. View "United States v. Ponzo" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of ammunition. The district court found that Defendant’s prior convictions for resisting arrest and assault and battery of a police officer (ABPO) subjected Defendant to an enhancement of his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). In so finding, the judge stated that he felt bound by First Circuit precedent: United States v. Carrigan, United States v. Weekes, and United States v. Dancy. The First Circuit affirmed in part and remanded in part, holding (1) the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress ammunition that was obtained pursuant to a search warrant; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made to police during a station house interview; and (3) because Carrigan and Weekes have been called into question by the Supreme Court, and because Dancy relied upon a portion of 18 U.S.C. 924(e) that has since been deemed unconstitutionally vague, the questions previously determined by those cases of whether the Massachusetts offenses of resisting arrest and ABPO qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA must be returned. View "United States v. Faust" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute more than twenty-eight grams of cocaine base. Appellant was sentenced to 132 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant challenged his sentence, arguing that the district court improperly applied a two-level enhancement, which applies when “[t]he defendant committed [the relevant] offense as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood.” The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s sentence, holding that the district court was justified in concluding that the two prongs of the criminal livelihood enhancement were satisfied. View "United States v. Gordon" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to a single count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The sentencing court, ruling on the basis of circumstantial evidence, attributed constructive possession of six Molotov cocktails to Appellant. That finding increased Appellant’s guideline sentencing range and contributed to his eighty-two-month sentence. Appellant appealed, challenging the constructive possession finding. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that although the evidence of constructive possession was circumstantial, it was convincing, and the district court’s inferences from that evidence were plausible. Therefore, the sentencing court did not clearly err in finding that Appellant constructively possessed the six Molotov cocktails. View "United States v. Nunez" on Justia Law