Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence of reimprisonment imposed upon the fourth revocation of Appellant's supervised release but vacated the subsequent term of supervised release to follow, holding that the district court erred in imposing additional supervised release.Appellant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). After he was initially released from prison, Appellant violated the terms his supervised release, and his supervised release was revoked. Thereafter, Appellant three times more violated the terms of his supervised release. In the latest revocation, the district court imposed the statutory maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment, followed by one additional year of supervised release. The First Circuit vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) Appellant did not preserve any argument regarding the district court's sentence of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3); and (2) the district court erred under 18 U.S.C. 3583(h) by imposing additional supervision. View "United States v. Ruiz-Valle" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to forty-five years of imprisonment in connection with his plea of guilty to one count each of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor and committing a felony involving a minor while required to register as a sex offender, holding that there was no error.The district court's sentence was composed of a thirty-five-year mandatory minimum on the attempted sexual exploitation of a minor count based on two prior state convictions relating to "the sexual exploitation of children" and a ten-year consecutive mandatory minimum on the remaining count. On appeal, Defendant argued that the thirty-five-year mandatory minimum did not apply because the phrase "relating to the sexual exploitation of children" means only the production of child pornography. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the plain text of "relating to the sexual exploitation of children" unambiguously refers to any criminal sexual conduct involving children; and (2) Defendant's remaining arguments failed. View "United States v. Winczuk" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence.Defendant was a passenger in a single-vehicle car accident on the Maine Turnpike. Suspicion that the vehicle and/or its occupants were transporting drugs Maine police officers searched Defendant's bag and discovered narcotics. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the evidence was obtain in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, after which Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's arguments for suppression failed. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for possession of firearms by a felon and his thirty-month sentence, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant challenged the procedural reasonableness of his sentence, asserting that the district court relied upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact regarding his use of a firearm on a previous occasion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the sentencing court did not clearly err in its factual findings and in crediting the account of a witness of the incident at issue over Defendant's own account. View "United States v. Lilly" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal did not meet the exacting plain error standard.Defendant pleaded guilty to using a firearm during a carjacking, a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court imposed a sentence of 108 months in prison, twenty-four months longer that the Guidelines recommendation, and a special condition upon his release requiring him to receive psychotherapy services. On appeal, Defendant argued for the first time that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable and that the sentencing judge erred by delegating to the probation department the authority to have the final say about when his mandated therapy was completed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his argument that faulty fact-finding made his upwardly variant sentence procedurally unreasonable; and (2) Defendant did not show any plain error on the part of the district court in imposing the therapy condition. View "United States v. Morales-Cortijo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's challenge to his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, holding that Appellant did not meet his burden of showing that his counsel's performance during the underlying criminal trial was deficient.Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to distribute a substance containing cocaine base and one count of malicious damage or destruction of property by fire. At sentencing, the trial court determined that Appellant was a career offender in part because his prior Maine state court conviction for unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs qualified as a "controlled substance offense" under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. In this collateral challenge to his sentence, Appellant argued that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel during his sentencing hearing based on his counsel's failure to object to the use of the Maine drug conviction as a predicate offense for the career offender enhancement. The First Circuit denied relief, holding that Appellant's ineffective assistance claim failed. View "Thompson v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of extortionate interstate communications and threatening to injury property or reputation, holding that Defendant did not meet his burden on any of his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the government improperly relied on statements made by a non-testifying witness in its closing argument and improperly instructed the jury that provocation was not a defense. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor's use of the statement at issue was improper, but the improper comment did not likely affect the outcome of the trial; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving a provocation instruction; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's request for a downward departure. View "United States v. Cantwell" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed upon his plea of guilty to five counts of carjacking and one count of attempted carjacking with a direct modification of the restitution order as specified in this and affirmed the modified restitution order, holding that Defendant's claims of sentencing error were without merit and that there was merit as to one of his claims regarding the restitution order.Defendant pleaded guilty to all six counts in the indictment. After a hearing, the district court imposed a within-the-range term of immurement of seventy-eight months and ordered Defendant to pay $9,295 in restitution. The First Circuit affirmed as modified, holding (1) there was no procedural error in Defendant's sentence; (2) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable; and (3) the district court must modify the portion of the restitution order dealing with reimbursement for transmission repairs. View "United States v. De Jesus-Torres" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed Appellant's appeal from the 115-month sentence imposed by the district court upon his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and heroin, holding that Appellant's challenge to his sentence was barred.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and heroin. As part of his plea agreement, Appellant agreed to waive his right to appeal. The district court imposed a sentence of 115 months of imprisonment. The First Circuit dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding (1) contrary to Appellant's contention, the language of the plea agreement's waiver provision covered this appeal; and (2) enforcing the waiver did not constitute a miscarriage of justice because it was entered into knowingly. View "United States v. Spinks" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court dismissing in part Plaintiffs' claims that a subset of Defendants participated in a conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 and that this conspiracy injured Plaintiffs, holding that there was no error.Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that Defendants engaged in several interrelated schemes to defraud Plaintiffs of Maine real estate. The district court dismissed the RICO conspiracy claim against two defendants, David Hirshon and LOSU, LLC, and denied Plaintiffs' motion seeking limited discovery from Hirshon. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) ruling that the complaint failed to state a RICO conspiracy claim against Hirshon and LOSU; (2) declining to consider certain documents outside the complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss; and (3) denying Plaintiffs discovery. View "Douglas v. Hirshon" on Justia Law