Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a protected location and a related forfeiture allegation. The government recommended the agreed 121-month sentence at the disposition hearing. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of immurement at the top of the Guidelines Sentencing Range of 168 months. Defendant appealed, asserting three procedural objections and a claim of substantive unreasonableness regarding his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that Defendant’s sentence was neither procedurally flawed nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Cortes-Medina" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of possession of a firearm in a school zone. The First Circuit reversed the conviction one count two on the basis of insufficient evidence that Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that he was in a school zone but affirmed the conviction on count one and remanded for resentencing. At resentencing, the district court imposed an upwardly variant sentence of sixty months of imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that Defendant’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Guzman-Montanez" on Justia Law

Appellant was a convicted drug trafficker who, at the time of this opinion, was serving a sentence of more than eighteen years. Appellant filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition claiming that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court sua sponte denied the petition on various grounds, including untimeliness. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant’s petition was a second or successive petition and that the petition did not meet either of section 2255(h)’s requirements. In so holding, the Court concluded that it need not reach the government’s arguments that the petition was untimely and did not state a meritorious claim on the merits. View "Bucci v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of passport fraud, one count of false representation to the Social Security Administration, and one count of theft of public money. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err in barring Defendant from presenting evidence of duress and necessity to the jury in defending against the first count of passport fraud, and the court did not err in declining to instruct the jury on those defenses; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to the second count of passport fraud. View "United States v. Lebreault-Feliz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of transportation, receipt, and possession of child pornography. The First Circuit affirmed on appeal. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2255 claiming that the jury selection process for his trial violated his Fifth Amendment right to be present and his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. Appellant did not raise either the Fifth Amendment or the Sixth Amendment claim at trial or on direct appeal. The district court denied habeas relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant could not overcome his procedural default from not pursuing either his Fifth Amendment or Sixth Amendment claim at trial or on appeal. View "Wilder v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2009, Defendant was indicted on one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute and two specific-offense counts of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The indictment did not specify the precise drug amounts involved, but under then-prevailing law, five grams was all that was needed to trigger a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. Defendant eventually pled guilty to all three counts. Between the indictment and the plea, Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), which elevated the quantity of crack cocaine required to impose a mandatory minimum sentence to twenty-eight grams. Prior to sentencing, Defendant challenged the applicability of the statutory mandatory minimum, arguing that attributing twenty-eight grams or more of crack cocaine to him would entail the use of a fact not charged in the indictment. Relying on Harris v. United States, the court invoked the statutory mandatory minimum and sentenced Defendant to concurrent ten-year terms of immurement. After Defendant appealed, the United States Supreme Court decided Alleyne v. United States and overruled Harris. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that while an Alleyne error occurred in this case, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "United States v. McIvery" on Justia Law

In 2002, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 168 months imprisonment. In 2012, while he was serving his 2002 sentence, Defendant pleaded guilty to a separate charge of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin. Defendant was sentenced as a career offender to 120 months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to the 168-month term he was already serving. In 2014, Defendant filed a pro se motion for reduction of his sentence. Defendant’s motion was based on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, which retroactively reduced by two levels the base offense level for many drug offenses. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant was ineligible for relief under the amendments because he had already served the entirety of his otherwise eligible sentence. View "United States v. Vaughn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting a bank robbery and conspiring to commit a bank robbery. At sentencing, the district court applied a weapon enhancement and an obstruction of justice enhancement and sentenced Defendant to a term of incarceration of 140 months. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, as the government provided sufficient evidence to enable the jury to find Defendant guilty of the charged offenses; and (2) did not err in applying the weapon enhancement and obstruction of justice enhancement. View "United States v. Lasseque" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess and distribute illegal drugs near a public housing facility and of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district judge imposed a prison sentence of 210 months, a sentence in the middle of the range contemplated by the plea agreement. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that he must be re-sentenced because the government broke the plea agreement or because of alleged defects in the acceptance of Defendant’s plea. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding (1) on plain error review, Defendant failed to establish that he was not in accord with his plea agreement; (2) there was no cause to consider whether the agreement should be set aside; and (3) therefore, the waiver of appeal Defendant signed was enforceable, and the First Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s appeal. View "United States v. Oppenheimer-Torres" on Justia Law

The government filed a juvenile information against Y.C.T. alleging two acts of delinquency. The government filed a motion for a discretionary transfer of Y.C.T. to the district court’s criminal jurisdiction. A magistrate judge issued a written report recommending that Y.C.T. be transferred to adult status for criminal prosecution. The district court adopted the recommendation after conducting a de novo review, concluding that the transfer best served the interest of justice. The First Circuit affirmed the transfer order, holding that the district court’s reliance on the record, as developed by the magistrate judge, to conduct its de novo review was not an abuse of discretion and did not violate Y.C.T.’s right to due process. View "United States v. Y.C.T." on Justia Law