Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of bank and wire fraud and unlawful monetary transaction. The trial court imposed a below-Guidelines term of 150 months. The court also entered an order of forfeiture in the amount of $2,966,344.37. This amount included all proceeds Defendant received from the convicted transactions, as well as all proceeds Defendant received from uncharged relevant conduct. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable; and (2) the district court had statutory authority to order the forfeiture of assets related to uncharged relevant conduct. View "United States v. Cox" on Justia Law

The three defendants in these consolidated appeals pleaded guilty to superseding informations charging them with, as relevant to this appeal, conspiring to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the admission of certain lay opinion testimony was within the ambit of the district court’s discretion; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) the record before the district court was insufficient to show the required predicate offenses to support one defendant’s sentence, and therefore, the case must be remanded to afford the parties an opportunity to present evidence concerning that defendant’s prior convictions; and (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the remaining two defendants. View "United States v. Dunston" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of drug trafficking. The trial judge sentenced Defendant to 360 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the one conspiracy charged, that the district court erred in admitting certain hearsay evidence, and that the district court read testimony back to the jury during deliberations without taking adequate steps to ensure the jury did not place undue weight on what it heard. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction as a member of the conspiracy charged in the indictment and proven at trial; and (2) there were no other reversible errors in the record below. View "United States v. Camacho-Santiago" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of bank fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. The district court sentenced Defendant to ninety-three months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay $532,152 in restitution. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for substitution of counsel; (2) did not deprive Defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney by allowing Defendant to represent himself at trial; and (3) did not abuse its discretion when it declined to dismiss a juror for potential bias because there was no bias as a matter of law. View "United States v. Kar" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty to aiding and abetting others in obstructing commerce and the movement of articles and commodities in such commerce by robbery (count one) and aiding and abetting others in the possession of a firearm that was discharged during a robbery (count two). The trial court sentenced Appellant to 120 months as to count one and another 120 months as to count two, to be served consecutively. Appellant appealed, arguing that there was an insufficient factual basis for the court’s acceptance of his guilty plea as to count two. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in accepting Appellant’s guilty plea with regards to count two. View "United States v. Diaz-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of money laundering. The district court sentenced Defendant to forty-two months of imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in instructing the jury regarding the definition of the term proceeds in section 1957; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (3) there was no plain error in the prosecutor’s statements made in his closing argument; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings challenged by Defendant; and (5) none of Defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal supported the reversal of his convictions. View "United States v. Rivera-Izquierdo" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to six counts of a ten-count indictment, including conspiracy to commit export violations, conspiracy to smuggle goods, and four counts of unlawfully exporting U.S. goods to Iran through the People’s Republic of China. The district court imposed a sentence of 108 months, the upper end of the Guidelines sentencing range. Defendant appealed, arguing that his 108-month incarcerative sentence was unreasonable. Defendant made three different arguments in support of his claim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, imposition of the 108-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Cheng" on Justia Law

In a multiple-count indictment, Defendant was charged with conspiring with twenty-nine others to distribute drugs in several Boston area neighborhoods. In pretrial proceedings, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to wiretaps obtained by the government, claiming, in part, that the government, in bad faith, failed to meet the strict procedural requirements for obtaining wiretaps under 18 U.S.C. 2517-2522. The trial court denied the motion to suppress without a hearing. After a trial, the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict, and the district court declared a mistrial. Thereafter, Defendant pled guilty solely to conspiracy to distribute marijuana, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant failed to present a credible case of bad faith omissions; (2) the district court properly determined that the facts set forth in the wiretap applications were sufficient to support its grant of wiretap intervention; (3) the lack of strict adherence to statutory sealing requirements did not mandate suppression; and (4) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant a hearing to explore his misrepresentation and bad faith concerns. View "United States v. Rodrigues" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of illegal insider trading. The conviction arose from Defendant’s act of receiving material, nonpublic information about a local bank from a fellow member of the Oakley Country Club and then using that information to make a substantial trading profit. Defendant appealed, arguing, in part, that the district court wrongly instructed the jury on the mens rea element of his offense. Defendant did not object to these instructions at trial. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the government presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict; and (2) the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury regarding the mens rea element of Defendant’s offense, but Defendant failed to establish that the error was plain error. View "United States v. Bray" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of both conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and healthcare fraud. The convictions arose from Defendant’s role in an extensive scheme to defraud Medicare by billing the program for services provided to patients falsely presented as eligible to receive them. Defendant was sentenced to thirty-six months of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she acted with the required culpable state of mind. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable fact-finder to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant conspired to commit, and committed, healthcare fraud. View "United States v. Troisi" on Justia Law