Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, holding that there was no procedural or substantive error.As to Defendant's drug conviction, the district court imposed an eighty-seven-month term of immurement, to be followed by a sixty-month term of immurement on the firearm conviction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not commit plain error in applying a stash-house enhancement; (2) any error in awarding one criminal history point for a prior offense that was dismissed under a diversionary program was patently harmless; and (3) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "Unites States v. Melendez-Rosado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute fentanyl, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error brought on appeal.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute fentanyl. The district court sentenced Defendant to the mandatory minimum of 120 months' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not clearly err when it found that Defendant failed to establish an improper government motive; and (2) did not clearly err when it rejected Defendant's sentencing factor manipulation claim. View "United States v. Benito Lara" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of aiding and abetting (1) a carjacking resulting in death, (2) kidnapping resulting in death, and (3) the use of a gun during a crime of violence resulting in murder (count three), holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) the district court did not err when it did not provide a jury instruction on duress; (3) the inclusion of a potentially invalid predicate offense in the jury's finding that Defendant was guilty on count three was not a plain or obvious error, and even if it was error, it was harmless without any effect on Defendant's substantial rights; and (4) as to Defendant's sentence, the district court did not err when it failed to impose a downward departure based on duress and when it applied an enhancement for obstruction of justice. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Santos" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress the fentanyl discovered in his waistband during a pat-frisk conducted after an anonymous tip alerted the police department of two men passed out in a vehicle, holding that there was no error.In denying Defendant's motion to suppress, the district court concluded that the investigatory stop did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights and that the officers had reasonable suspicion that Defendant could have been armed with a weapon to justify a Terry frisk. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no Fourth Amendment violation because the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion for the initial encounter, for extending the stop, and to believe Defendant was armed and dangerous. View "United States v. Harrington" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence collected during the investigation that led to his arrest, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered after agents executed a warrant to search his residence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the warrant's affidavit established a sufficient nexus between the criminal activity and the places to be searched; (2) the district court reasonably found that no search of Defendant's person occurred; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's statements to law enforcement agents. View "United States v. Corleto" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and of possessing cocaine and cocaine base with intent to distribute, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After Defendant was found guilty by a jury, the district court imposed a sentence of 168 months, thirty-one months above the range provided by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that (1) the exclusion of Defendant's mother as a witness was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the district court's error in giving a flawed jury instruction on the felon-in-possession charge was not prejudicial; and (3) Defendant's challenges to his sentence were unavailing. View "United States v. Fletcher" on Justia Law

The affirmed the decision of the district court to allow the government to rescind a plea agreement previously entered into with Defendant and proceed to sentence Defendant to a 162-month term of immurement, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his arguments on appeal.Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing fentanyl. Thereafter, Defendant entered into a plea cooperation agreement with the government, which merged into and supplemented his plea agreement. Defendant, however, refused to perform under the agreement. Consequently, the district court rejected the supplemented plea agreement and sentenced Defendant to a 162-month term of immurement. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to enforce Defendant's supplemented plea agreement; and (2) there was no error in the sentence imposed. View "United States v. Mejia" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for wire fraud, extortion conspiracy, and extortion, holding that Defendant was "fairly tried and lawfully convicted by an impartial jury in a trial presided over by an able judge and unblemished by any reversible error."A jury convicted Defendant of nine counts of wire fraud, four counts of tax fraud, four counts of extortion conspiracy, and four counts of extortion in connection with his promotion of his SnoOwl app and public corruption as mayor of the city of Fall River, Massachusetts. The district court acquitted Defendant on six of the nine wire fraud counts and all four of the tax fraud counts and otherwise denied Defendant's post-trial motions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions that the district court allowed to stand; (2) Defendant was not prejudiced by "evidentiary spillover" resulting from a "transference of guilt" from the counts that the district court dismissed in a post-trial ruling; (3) there was no instructional error in this case; and (4) any alleged misconduct on the part of the prosecutor did not support Defendant's claim that the alleged misconduct prejudiced the jury and, thus, influenced the outcome of the case. View "United States v. Correia" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to 108 months in prison in connection with her conviction for one count of carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively infirm.In the presentence investigation report, the probation office recommended a four-level enhancement for abduction to facilitate the commission of the offense of conviction. The district concluded that a four-level increase was warranted and imposed a sentence at the bottom of the guideline sentencing range for the offense of conviction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Rijos-Rivera" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision granting summary judgment to Defendants, Norman Sylvester and the Town of Bourne, Massachusetts and dismissing Plaintiff's lawsuit alleging that the discipline he faced as a firefighter violated his constitutional rights, holding that the district court did not err.In his complaint, Plaintiff claimed that he refused to sit for a "promotional" photograph in violation of his religious beliefs and that he was disciplined as a result of his refusal. Plaintiff brought this complaint against Sylvester, in his role as Fire Chief of the Bourne Fire Department, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, for violation of his rights under the Free Exercise Clause, and against the Town and Sylvester under the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch,. 149, 148. The district court granted summary judgment to Sylvester on qualified immunity grounds on the section 1983 claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly concluded that Sylvester did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights, as required by the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. View "Swartz v. Sylvester" on Justia Law