Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The circuit court affirmed Defendant's sentence, imposed in connection with his drug-related offenses, holding that the district court did not err by adopting a four-level role-in-the-offense enhancement when formulating Defendant's guideline sentencing range.After applying the relevant enhancements and reductions, the court imposed a downwardly variant sentence of 216 months' imprisonment on each count of conviction, to run concurrently. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his argument that his exercise of control in the underlying operation was of an insufficient duration to ground application of the four-level enhancement. View "United States v. Poliero" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's 516-month sentence entered upon his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to conduct enterprise affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity (RICO), holding that there was no error relating to Defendant's sentence.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erroneously applied a sentencing enhancement for the use or attempted use of a minor in the commission of the offense under the United States Sentencing Guidelines and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the minor-use enhancement was properly applied in this case; and (2) the sentence imposed by the district court was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Vaquerano Canas" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence in his underlying criminal case, holding that the district court did not err in imposing a sentencing enhancement for the use or attempted use of a minor in the commission of the offense under the sentencing guidelines.Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of RICO conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) and, in doing so, admitted to two murders. After a sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in applying the guideline enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.4 for Defendant's use or attempted use of a minor. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error. View "United States v. Salvador Gutierrez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for violating 18 U.S.C. 666, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Defendant was indicted on four counts of violating section 666(a)(1)(B) stemming from his role in the allegedly corrupt awarding of contracts by certain Puerto Rico municipalities. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment and three years' supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions; (2) Defendant's two evidentiary challenges were unavailing; and (3) Defendant's 120-month prison sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Carrasco" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court convicting Defendants, sisters Ivonne Falcon-Nieves and Marielis Falcon-Nieves, on various federal charges relating to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's alleged public corruption, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support some of Ivonne's convictions.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support one of the counts of honest services wire fraud with which Ivonne was charged, Ivonne's convictions for conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud or federal program bribery, and Marielis's conviction for aiding and abetting extortion; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support Ivonne's conviction for federal program bribery, her other two convictions for honest services wire fraud, and her aiding and abetting extortion conviction; (3) one of Ivonne's conspiracy convictions must be vacated due to a prejudicial variance; and (4) the remaining convictions must be vacated because the district court erred in denying the sisters' motions for severance of their trials. View "United States v. Falcon-Nieves" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal the First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress items seized during a traffic stop, holding that the government was not entitled to relief on its allegations of error.Defendant was stopped by a New Hampshire police officer for failing to use a turn signal on a road that narrowed from two lanes to one lane. After the officer discovered that Defendant had outstanding arrest warrants the officer arrested Defendant and seized a bag from him containing narcotics. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that New Hampshire law did not require use of a turn signal at the merge point on the roadway at issue. The district court agreed and granted the motion to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) it was not objectively reasonable for the officer to rely on a yield sign in the roadway to govern the factual situation he was encountering; and (2) it was not a reasonable mistake of law for the officer to believe that a turn signal was required at the merge point. View "United States v. Potter" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence that he received in connection with a robbery committed in Maine, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court erred in finding that two of his earlier convictions under Massachusetts law and one under Maine law were crimes of violence under the sentencing guidelines. The First Circuit disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's Massachusetts conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon qualified as a crime of violence under the guidelines; and (2) Defendant's Maine conviction for robbery with the use of a dangerous weapon was a crime of violence under the guidelines. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed Defendant's single-count conviction under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), holding that no rational jury could have found Defendant guilty of extortion and extortion conspiracy, as those crimes are construed under Puerto Rio law.Defendant and six others were charged with a RICO violation arising from activities as officers within the Caguas Drug Unit (CDU). The indictment alleged that Defendant committed two specific acts of racketeering - one act of extortion conspiracy and one act of extortion. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the charged RICO violation. The First Circuit reversed, holding that Defendant's conviction rested on insufficient evidence that he committed at least two predicate acts of racketeering. View "United States v. Munoz-Martinez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Appellant's conviction for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. 922(n) - the federal prohibition on the receipt of a firearm by someone "under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" - and vacated Appellant's sentence, holding that an instructional error and the application of a "trafficking of firearms" enhancement were in error.Appellant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 922(n) and 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A), the federal prohibition on "dealing in firearms" without a license. The First Circuit vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to the "willfully" element of the section 922(n) offense; (2) remand was required for an evidentiary hearing on Appellant's claim of actual conflict of defense counsel under the Sixth Amendment; and (3) the trial court erred in applying the "trafficking" enhancement, and the error was not harmless. View "United States v. Daniells" on Justia Law

The First Circuit granted in part Petitioner's petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of Petitioner's application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and vacated the BIA's order denying Petitioner CAT relief as to Ecuador, holding that remand was required for further proceedings.Petitioner was charged with removability for entering the country without admission or parole. Petitioner conceded removability and sought deferral of removal under CAT. An immigration judge (IJ) denied relief. The BIA affirmed. Petitioner petitioned for review and was subsequently removed to Ecuador. The First Circuit vacated the BIA's decision insofar as it denied Petitioner's CAT claim linked to the vernal violence in Ecuadorian prisons, holding that the BIA and IJ failed to apply the proper legal test in assessing whether the Ecuadorian government would consent or acquiesce to acts of torture by private actors in Ecuadorian prisons. View "Murillo Morocho v. Garland" on Justia Law