Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed in full the verdicts of the jury convicting the five defendants in this case on charges brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) but vacated the restitution and forfeiture orders, holding that the jury's special findings and verdicts as to all defendants were affirmed.Defendants in this case were a group of pharmaceutical executives involved with Insys Therapeutics, Inc., which marketed and sold Subsys, a fentanyl-laced medication approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use in the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain. A jury found Defendants guilty of racketeering charges, and the court sentenced Defendants to prison terms of varying lengths. The First Circuit upheld the jury verdicts in full and affirmed the district court's denial of Defendants' various motions for judgments of acquittal and/or new trials but vacated the restitution and forfeiture orders, holding that the district court erred as to these orders. View "United States v. Simon" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed upon Defendant in connection with his conviction for aggravated Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) conspiracy based on Massachusetts second-degree murder, holding that Defendant did not meet his burden of showing any plain error.The district court ordered Defendant to pay restitution, determining that restitution was mandatory under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A, because the RICO conspiracy was a crime of violence with an identifiable victim who suffered a physical injury. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in requiring him to pay restitution under the MVRA. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no clear or obvious error by the district court in this case. View "United States v. Solis-Vasquez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court refusing to exercise its discretion to provide compassionate release to Defendant under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), as recently amended by the First Step Act (FSA), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 603(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (2018), holding that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying Defendant's motion.Approximately three decades ago, Defendant was convicted of several criminal offenses connected to his role in laundering more than $136 million for a Colombian drug cartel. The district court sentenced him to an aggregate 660-year term of immurement. The First Circuit affirmed. In 2020, Defendant moved for compassionate release based on health-related concerns and arguing that the unusual length of his prison term constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for his release. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was a sufficient basis for the district court's decision. View "United States v. Saccoccia" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with her conviction for maintaining a drug-involved premises, holding that the lack of evidence on the critical issue in this case required that the case be remanded for resentencing.The trial court sentenced Defendant to a below-the-range term of immurement of thirty-four months, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Defendant argued that the record evidence did not support the district court's determination that Defendant, above and beyond providing her apartment as a drug-involved premises, could be said to have participated in the drug operation, and therefore, the district court erred by declining to apply the offense-level cap limned in U.S.S.G. 2D1.8(a). The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that the record did not permit a reasoned determination that Defendant participated in the drug operation within the meaning of section 2D1.8(a)(2). View "United States v. Patch" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence imposed after he entered a guilty plea to one count of machine-gun possession, holding that the district court failed to offer an adequate explanation for its upward variance from the applicable sentencing range under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.The district court imposed a variant sentence of forty-two months' imprisonment, twelve months more than the top of the Guidelines sentencing range. On appeal, Defendant argued that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that the district court committed procedural error when it failed to offer an adequate explanation for its upward variance. View "United States v. Garcia-Perez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's forty-eight-month prison sentence that the district court imposed after Defendant entered a guilty plea to one count of firearm possession, holding that resentencing was required in this case.The district court imposed a variant sentence of forty-eight months - eighteen months more than the top of the guidelines sentencing range and twice the length of the sentence that both parties recommended. On appeal, Defendant challenged both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court committed plain procedural error by imposing an upward variance without adequate explanation. View "United States v. Carrasquillo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed in connection with Defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiring to possess with intent to distribute the same, holding that there was no error in the sentence.After a lengthy sentencing proceeding, the district court denied Defendant safety-valve relief, concluding that Defendant had not met her duty of disclosure to the government under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(5). The court proceeded to impose the mandatory five-year term of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that she met the disclosure obligation of section 3553(f)(5). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant was ineligible for safety-valve relief because she failed truthfully and completely to disclose the information that she possessed concerning her offense of conviction. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's eight-month sentence for unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), holding that the bare criminal complaint did not provide reliable evidence to support the district court's finding that Defendant had previously used a weapon to cut another person.Defendant's sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines was eight to fourteen months. Defendant urged the district court to issue a below-Guidelines sentence based on, among other grounds, the fact that unlawful reentry is a non-violent, victimless crimes. In sentencing Defendant to eight months' imprisonment the district court relied upon allegations in a Puerto Rico complaint that Defendant had previously used a weapon to cut another person. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court abused its discretion by relying on a bare allegation that was both challenged by Defendant and unsupported by any other indicia of reliability to justify a longer sentence than otherwise would have been imposed. View "United States v. Castillo-Torres" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district judge ordering a joint retrial of Roger Boncy and Joseph Baptiste in the interest of justice because neither defendant got a fair first trial, holding that Defendants showed deficient performance of counsel and that Defendants were prejudiced.After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted of conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Travel Act, and Baptiste was convicted of violating the Travel Act and conspiring to violate the Money Laundering Act. Baptist moved for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Boncy also requested a separate trial on the grounds that Baptiste's lawyer's ineffectiveness influenced the jury's view of both defendants and thus impaired Boncy's due process right to a fair proceeding. The district judge found that the cumulative effect of counsel's deficiencies prejudiced both Baptiste and Boncy. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the government's arguments on appeal were unavailing. View "United States v. Baptiste" on Justia Law

The First Circuit confirmed the convictions of Carlos Velazquez-Fontanez and Jose D. Resto-Figueroa for various criminal offenses related to La Rompe ONU, a drug trafficking organization that operated in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and vacated the convictions of Ruben Cotto-Andino, holding that, as to Cotto-Andino, the court committed reversible error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence against all three defendants was sufficient to support their RICO conspiracy convictions, their 21 U.S.C. 846 convictions, and their 18 U.S.C. 36(b)(2) convictions; (2) the district court's limitation of Cotto-Andino's rebuttal of the government's uncharged murder evidence exceeded the bounds of the court's discretion, was not harmless, and required that Cotto-Andino's convictions be vacated; (3) the remainder of Cotto-Andino's challenges to the admission of evidence were unavailing; (4) an error in the transcript did not warrant reversal of the district court's denial of a mistrial in favor of Resto-Figueroa; and (5) there was no error in the jury instructions. View "United States v. Velazquez-Fontanez" on Justia Law