Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a second trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Defendant was sentenced to 196 months of incarceration. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) it was not plain error for the district court to admit an unexecuted draft contract into evidence; (2) the district judge did not err by commenting on the draft contract; (3) there was no violation of the Jones Act, and Defendant suffered no prejudice in the admission of English testimony peppered with Spanish colloquialisms; (4) the prosecutor’s closing and rebuttal arguments did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct; and (5) Defendant’s sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Carela" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of distribution of a controlled substance (crack cocaine). Based on the inadvertent admission of evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to serve 120 months in prison. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that it was highly probable that the submission of the inadmissible evidence did not influence the verdict and was therefore harmless. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

After two separate jury trials, Defendant was convicted of one count of possession of child pornography and one count of false declaration before the court. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) with regard to the possession charge, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress and did not err by permitting the government to play two thirty-second video excerpts of child pornography for the jury during its closing; and (2) with regard to the perjury matter, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Dudley" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court increased Defendant’s base offense level from 18 to 20 based on relevant conduct concerning drugs he purportedly sold, rather than the drugs he actually possessed. The relevant conduct was based on a confidential informant’s (CI) grant jury testimony and a statement the CI made to the government. Defendant received a sentence of seventy-five-months imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) did not clearly err in finding that the information obtained from the CI met the requirements for relevant conduct and was sufficiently reliable to attribute to Defendant an additional quantity of drugs; (3) did not clearly err in the drug quantity it attributed to Defendant; and (4) did not err in imposition an obstruction of justice enhancement. View "United States v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a straight guilty plea to several firearm-related and drug-related offenses. The district court sentenced Defendant to a total of 100 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, challenging his sentence and asking the First Circuit to vacate the acceptance of his guilty plea, specifically alleging that the district court made several errors in accepting and entering his plea. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the conviction based on the entry of the guilty plea, holding that although several of Defendant’s claims of error in the district court’s acceptance of his plea had merit, the errors were harmless; and (2) remanded for consideration of a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Drug Quantity Table of the United States Guidelines, as the parties agreed that Defendant was entitled to seek a sentencing reduction under this amendment. View "United States v. Alvira-Sanchez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s conviction on appeal and remanded for a new trial after finding non-harmless trial error. On retrial, Defendant was again found guilty of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. After a sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a sentence of 168 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erroneously sentenced him as a career offender. In a pro se supplemental brief, Defendant also claimed a number of trial and sentencing errors. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence and conviction, holding (1) Defendant was properly sentenced as a career offender; and (2) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error during the trial, and Defendant’s challenge to his sentence had been previously rejected. View "United States v. Melvin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of carjacking and of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. Defendant was sentence to a term of 420 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, challenging his conviction and sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s request for a continuance to file a motion for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for another perpetrator, who had pleaded guilty for his involvement in these same crimes; (2) Defendant’s prison sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable; and (3) Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims were dismissed without prejudice to their renewal on collateral review. View "United States v. Garcia-Pagan" on Justia Law

Defendant’s vehicle was stopped and searched by officers with the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency, the Maine Police, and the Portland Police Department. The search involved the use of a drug-sniffing dog and resulted in the discovery of cocaine and a firearm. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and the court’s denial of his motion for discovery of records. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the warrantless search and seizure of Defendant’s vehicle were justified by the automobile exception. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Petitioner, who was serving a 235-month sentence as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), sought certification to file in the district court a second or successive motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 225. In his application, Petitioner relied upon the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, which struck down the “residual clause” of the ACCA as unconstitutionally vague. The First Circuit granted the application, allowing Petitioner to file his petition with the district court, and certified that Petitioner had made the requisite prima facie showing that the new constitutional rule announced in Johnson qualified as a basis for habeas relief on a second or successive petition. View "Pakala v. United States" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of participating in a conspiracy to fix the prices of Puerto Rico freight services. Defendant was sentenced to sixty months’ imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was correctly charged, and the indictment was not defective; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress the search of his personal electronics; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s pre-trial motion to change venue; (4) the district court did not err in refusing to grant Defendant a new trial on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct; (5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the testimony of certain witnesses; (6) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s request for a theory-of-defense instruction; (7) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s request for a mistrial when, during jury deliberations, the jury sent the judge a note stating that it could not come to a verdict; and (8) there was no error in Defendant’s sentence. View "United States v. Peake" on Justia Law