Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to several federal firearms offenses. Defendant already had a long criminal record, including Massachusetts convictions for unarmed robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, distribution of a controlled substance, and armed assault with intent to murder. Relying on the first three convictions, the district judge sentenced Defendant as an armed career criminal to fifteen years prison. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant’s convictions for unarmed robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, and armed assault with intent to murder provided the necessary three predicates for his Armed Career Criminal Act sentence. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit access-device fraud. Before trial, Defendant and his co-defendant filed motions to suppress evidence and statements that had been obtained in the previous months in connection with three traffic stops. The district court denied the motions to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress concerning a traffic stop in Kittery, Maine because the police had reasonable suspicion to justify the investigative stop as of 1:55 a.m. and the seizure was not unreasonably long; and (2) the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop in Ohio because there was reasonable suspicion to justify the detention. View "United States v. Ramdihall" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit access-device fraud. Before trial, Defendant and his co-defendant filed motions to suppress evidence and statements that had been obtained in the previous months in connection with three traffic stops. The district court denied the motions to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop in Ohio because there was no unlawful seizure, and therefore, the evidence Defendant sought to suppress did not constitute the fruits of an unlawful seizure; and (2) the district court did not err in concluding that the warrantless swiping of credit cards from in the trunk of a rental car through a card reader was constitutional. View "United States v. Hillaire" on Justia Law

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