Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the sentencing court sentencing Defendant to an upwardly variant thirty-year sentence for his conviction for discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, holding that remand was required in this case.After a hearing, the district court imposed a thirty-year incarcerate sentence reflecting a twenty-year upward variance for Defendant's conviction. Defendant appealed, challenging his sentence as substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit vacated the judgment below, holding that the district court failed to articulate a plausible sentencing rationale, requiring that Defendant's sentence be vacated and this case remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Flores-Nater" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for distributing or possessing with intent to distribute fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the government presented insufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction and that various trial errors occurred, requiring reversal of his conviction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the evidence presented at trial provided a sufficient basis for a rational juror to find Defendant guilty of violating 21 U.S.C. 841; and (2) none of Defendant's claimed trial errors had merit. View "United States v. Santiago" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence of a 108-month term of immurement for attempted possession with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Defendant waived his claim that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress on the grounds that his arrest and the subsequent search of his person were unreasonable; (2) the district court did not plainly error in allowing the testimony of a detective; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; and (4) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Concepcion-Guliam" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed Appellant's appeal from his conviction and sentence, holding that Appellant's waiver of appeal in the plea agreement was valid and enforceable.Appellant was charged with drug- and firearm-related offenses, and the parties entered a plea agreement in which Appellant agreed to plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The agreement included an appeal waiver provision that applied if the district court sentenced Appellant to an eight-year-or-less incarcerative term. On appeal, Appellant attempted to challenge the application of two sentencing enhancements. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that the appeal waiver contained in Appellant's plea agreement was valid and enforceable, precluding this appeal. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that the government had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant had violated the conditions of his supervised release and sentencing him to a two-year term of imprisonment, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Appellant challenged the district court's determination that the government proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he possessed a firearm in violation of the conditions of his supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) a releasee does not have a Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses during revocation proceedings, and Appellant's remaining constitutional challenge was waived; (2) the district court erred in failing to make the explicit balancing determination contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C), but the error was harmless; and (3) the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Teixeira" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of sex trafficking of a minor, use of an interstate facility to promote unlawful activity, and maintaining a drug-involved premises, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to a mistrial after the trial judge dismissed two jurors immediately before the jury started deliberating and further erred in denying his motion for a new trial. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no patent abuse of discretion in the trial judge's conclusion that mistrial was unwarranted; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to a new trial on the ground that the government had suppressed impeachment information about one of its witnesses because the suppression did not undermine the confidence in the jury's guilty verdicts. View "United States v. Tucker" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the sentence imposed upon Defendant after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, holding that there was procedural error in the proceedings below.In the plea agreement at issue the parties agreed to recommend a combined sentence between ninety-six and 120 months in prison. The aggregated Guideline Sentencing Range for the crimes was sixty to sixty-two months' imprisonment. The district court, however, varied upwards to impose a sentence of 144 months. The First Circuit vacated the upwardly variant sentence, holding that because the district court offered no explicit rationale tying the instant facts to the statutory sentencing goals, the court committed plain error. View "United States v. Munoz-Fontanez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, three counts of substantive wire fraud, and two counts of aggravated identity theft, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on appeal.Defendant was convicted of crimes he committed participating in an international scheme that used stolen identities to file fraudulent federal income tax returns with the IRS. The district court sentenced Defendant to a total of seventy months' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) this Court declines to review the merits of Defendant's ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal; (2) a challenged jury instruction did not constructively amend the indictment and was not error; and (3) during sentencing, the district court did not clearly err in calculating the loss amount attributable to Defendant's conduct. View "United States v. Akoto" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of twenty-four months in prison for violating the terms of his supervised release, holding that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.After completing his term of imprisonment for possession of a firearm following a felony conviction Defendant began a three-year term of supervised release. Defendant was charged with two counts of aggravated abuse fifteen months into his term of supervised release. After a revocation hearing, the district court imposed a sentence of twenty-four months' imprisonment. The case was remanded, and on remand, the court imposed the same length sentence it had imposed after the original revocation hearing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's claims of procedural and substantive error were unavailing. View "United States v. Portell-Marquez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence that he possessed an AR-15 assault rifle and many rounds of ammunition, holding that the district court correctly found that Defendant had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the evidence at issue.At issue was whether Defendant showed an objectively reasonable privacy interest in the items seized from a case he had left in the home of his former domestic partner and their minor son. Law enforcement officers retrieved the case after responding to Defendant's former partner's domestic disturbance call when Defendant entered the residence, assaulted her, and left her and the child wounded. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that he had a subjective and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the case. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. View "United States v. John" on Justia Law