Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Four appellants were jointly tried and convicted of conspiring to import cocaine and heroin into the United States and conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Two of those appellants were additionally convicted of illegally reentering the United States. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Appellants were not entitled to reversal of their conspiracy convictions because they were afforded a fair trial and certain expert testimony was proper; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Appellants’ motions for judgments of acquittal because the evidence of their guilt was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts; and (3) one appellant's challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence failed. View "United States v. Pena-Santo" on Justia Law

In federal court, Appellant entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in a multi-defendant drug conspiracy case. Pending sentencing in his federal case, Appellant pled guilty to three state law murder and weapons violations. Appellant was sentenced to 204 months’ imprisonment in state court. The federal district court subsequently sentenced Appellant to 280 months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the 204-month sentence imposed in his state criminal case. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court’s sentence was procedurally unsound and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the sentence was procedurally sound and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Velez-Soto" on Justia Law