Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's convictions for nine counts of wire fraud and six counts of aggravated identity theft for his participation in an alleged health insurance fraud scheme, holding that the verdict form that was submitted to the jury violated Defendant's federal constitutional right to a jury trial, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court invaded the jury's over fact-finding by overemphasizing certain of the government's evidence in a manner that was contrary to Appellant's interests, in violation of Appellant's Sixth Amendment right; and (2) there was a reasonable possibility that the constitutional violation at issue influenced the jury in reaching its verdicts in this case, and therefore, the verdicts could not stand, and remand was required. View "United States v. Moffett" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's requested credit for accepting responsibility for the two offenses of conviction because he had offered to plead guilty to those offenses and later declined to contest the offenses at trial, holding that the district court did not err.Appellant was convicted of two counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. At sentencing, Appellant requested a two-level reduction in offense level of acceptance of responsibility. The district court denied the request and sentenced Appellant to 180 months' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant credit for acceptance of responsibility. View "United States v. Gauthier" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's complaint asserting that New Hampshire's criminal defamation statute was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and violated the First Amendment by criminalizing defamatory speech, holding that Appellant's allegations did not assert viable constitutional claims.At issue was N.H. Rev. Stat. 644:11(I), which provides that a person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he "purposely communicates to any person, orally or in writing, any information he knows to be false and knows will tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule." Appellant was twice charged under the statute. Appellant later brought this complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964), precluded Appellant's First Amendment attack on section 644:11; and (2) the New Hampshire statute was not unconstitutionally vague. View "Frese v. Formella" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court to admit and consider hearsay evidence when revoking Appellant's term of supervised release, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possessing and distributing cocaine base and of being a felon in possession of ammunition. After Appellant began serving his term of supervised release under several conditions a criminal complaint was lodged against him charging him with weapons and assault offenses. The district court found that Appellant was guilty of several crimes and revoked his term of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of the challenged hearsay statements; and (2) Appellant waived his remaining challenge on appeal. View "United States v. Franklin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), holding that there was no plain error in the district court's application of a four-level role-in-the-offense enhancement.This case arose from a home invasion and robbery committed by Defendant and four co-conspirators. After Defendant pleaded guilty the district court sentenced him to a ninety-seven months' term of immurement. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in applying the upward role-in-the-offense adjustments. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the sentencing court did not commit plain error when it determined that Defendant operated as an organizer of the enterprise. View "United States v. Rivera" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of fifty-seven counts under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.; the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.; and the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1341, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.After Defendant was initially sentenced, the First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding two enhancements at issue on appeal, which were set out in U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(16)(A) and U.S.S.G. 3A1.1(b). On remand, the same sentencing judge resentenced Defendant to a 174 months in prison, determining that both the conscious or reckless risk enhancement and the vulnerable victims enhancement applied to Defendant. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in applying the two enhancements when determining Defendant's base offense level; and (2) Defendant's remaining claims of error were unavailing. View "United States v. Cadden" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of twenty-four months' imprisonment imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to health care fraud, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant pleaded guilty to health care fraud for his multiyear scheme to defraud MaineCare, a state-run program that administers Medicaid benefits in the state of Maine and reimburses Maine health care providers for MaineCare services. After a hearing, the court varied downward and imposed a sentence of twenty-four months' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in its loss calculations or in imposing a four-level leader/organizer enhancement; and (2) Defendant's downward variant sentence satisfied the substantive reasonableness standard. View "United States v. Ahmed" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Employer and dismissing all of Employee's claims alleging retaliatory behavior under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2 et seq., discrimination and retaliation under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. 4301 et seq., and violations of Puerto Rico Law 115, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.The district court granted Employer's motion for summary judgment, finding that Employee failed to make a prima facie showing of retaliation and, in the alternative, failed to rebut Employer's explanations for why the behavior in question was non-discriminatory in nature. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's conclusion that Employee's statement in opposition to Employer's statement of uncontested material facts was noncompliant with Local Rule 56; (2) the district court properly found that Employee failed to make out a prima facie case for retaliation under Title VII; and (3) the dismissal of Employee's antiretaliation law claims was proper. View "Rodriguez-Severino v. UTC Aerospace Systems" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of enticement of a fifteen-year-old minor for unlawful sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), and transportation of a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(a), holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant asserted numerous challenges to the criminal judgment related to the district court's evidentiary rulings and argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress; (2) a defendant can be found to persuade, entice, or induce a victim in violation of section 2422 despite purported evidence that the victim agreed to engage in sexual activity; and (3) Defendant's remaining claims failed. View "United States v. Greaux-Gomez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of all counts in a 41-count indictment charging him with sexual exploitation of a child and possessing, promoting, and distributing child pornography and sentencing him to a term of eighty years' imprisonment, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal were unavailing.On appeal, Defendant argued that the total length of his term-of-hears sentence violated the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's eighty-year sentence for dozens of child pornography offenses did not reach the level of gross disproportionality. View "United States v. Raiche" on Justia Law