Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed upon Defendant in connection with his conviction of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance and conspiracy to import a controlled substance into the United States, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 262-month sentence.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by applying a four-level leadership enhancement, failing properly to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553 regarding his cooperation with the government, and imposing a much longer sentence than several co-defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's sentence of 252 months' imprisonment was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Coplin-Benjamin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendants of drug conspiracy crimes for their roles in a drug-trafficking case, holding that Defendants were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error.After a joint jury trial, co-defendants Katerin Martinez-Alberto and Alexandria Andino-Rodriguez were convicted for their roles in an underlying trafficking venture. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) any error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings was harmless; (2) there was no plain error in the jury instructions; and (3) the trial court did not commit clear error in determining that Andino-Rodriguez did not carry her burden to demonstrate she was entitled to the downward adjustment she sought. View "United States v. Andino-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions, entered after a jury trial, for distribution of controlled substances and possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument were improper, depriving him of his right to a fair trial, and that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress drug evidence obtained during a search, pursuant to a warrant, of his residence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that (1) Defendant's substantial rights were not affected by the prosecutor's alleged improper comments; and (2) there was no error in the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Perez Soto" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant, following a jury trial, of various firearm and controlled substance offenses, holding that none of Defendant's challenges on appeal had merit.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court correctly concluded that the search warrant leading to Defendant's arrest was clearly supported by probable cause, and therefore, there was no error in the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress; (2) the district court did not err in concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions on the firearm charges; and (3) the district court's seventy-two-month sentence on count one was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Sylvestre" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of wire fraud and honest services wire fraud, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1346, and 2 (count seven) for participating in a fraudulent scheme to obtain tests and test scores from ACT, Inc., holding that the district court did not err.Defendant, along with fourteen other parents, was named in an indictment resulting from an investigation into alleged fraudulent schemes designed to secure the admission of the children of the defendants into national elite universities. Defendant was charged with several crimes stemming from his payment of $50,000 to have an ACT proctor change his son's test scores. Defendant moved to dismiss count seven on the grounds that ACT test scores do not constitute money or property under the wire fraud statute. The motion was denied, and Defendant conditionally pled guilty. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the property interest alleged in the indictment was the object of Defendant's fraud; and (2) Defendant's remaining arguments were either waived or without merit. View "United States v. McGlashan" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief challenging the restraint procedures used by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) under the Eighth Amendment and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), holding that the district court did not err in denying relief.Plaintiff, an inmate who suffered from severe arthritis in his shoulder joints, challenged the restraint procedures used on him by the DOC, including "rear cuffing" with a single standard handcuff, then later rear cuffing using "double cuffs," and still later using custom modified handcuffs. In this action, Plaintiff argued that the unnecessary pain caused by these restraint procedures violated his constitutional and statutory rights and sought an order requiring the DOC to adopt his own proposed restraint procedure. The district court denied Plaintiff's request for preliminary relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that DOC did not respondent with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs and that Plaintiff was unlikely to prevail on the merits of his ADA claim. View "Sosa v. Mass. Dep't of Correction" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to 240 months imprisonment - double the statutory minimum - in connection with his plea of guilty to one count of knowingly carrying, brandishing, or discharging one or more firearms during and in relation to a kidnapping resulting in a crime of violence, holding that there was no error.Pursuant to his plea agreement, Defendant joined the government during sentencing to recommend a sentence of 210 months. The court rejected the recommendation and sentenced Defendant to 240 months - double the statutory minimum of 120 months. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court's upwardly variant sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Diaz-Serrano" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's prison sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to crimes arising from his role in a bank fraud scheme and vacated in part the restitution order, holding that the district court should not have included a certain auto loan in the restitution order.Defendant pleaded guilty to three crimes stemming from his involvement in a bank fraud conspiracy. The district court sentenced Defendant to 110 months' imprisonment and also ordered restitution in the amount of $256,537, an amount that included the auto loan at issue. The First Circuit vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) Defendant's prison sentence was procedurally reasonable; and (2) the district court erred by including the auto loan at issue in its restitution order, but the remainder of the restitution order was proper. View "United States v. Gadson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition for habeas review on the grounds that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, holding that, although this Court's reasoning differs from that of the district court, there was no error in the denial of the habeas petition.Petitioner pled guilty to transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. On appeal, Petitioner argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance based on a claim centered on the applicable statute of limitations, which had changed from the time when Petitioner committed the offense of conviction to the time that he was indicted. The district court denied relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to move to dismiss the charges against him on limitations grounds. View "Miller v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying the petition.After Petitioner pleaded guilty to seven counts of being a felon in possession of ammunition and/or firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), which held that to convict a defendant of violating section 922(g) the government must prove that the defendant knew that he or she had a relevant prohibited statute when committing the underlying offense. Thereafter, Petitioner brought this petition arguing that he would have proceeded to trial had he been told of the mens rea requirement. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to carry his burden of establishing that it was reasonably probable that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the Rehaif error in this case. View "Guardado v. United States" on Justia Law