Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting three defendants of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) conspiracy with a special finding that defendant Noe Salvador Perez-Vasquez participated in the murder of one man and special findings that they each participated in the murder of another man, holding that the majority of Defendants' challenges lacked merit.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) there was no error in the district court's challenged evidentiary rulings; (3) the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in denying Hector Enamorado's motion for a mistrial based on Perez-Vasquez's closing argument; (4) the government's statements during its closing argument were not improper or prejudicial; (5) there was no error in the jury instructions; (6) Defendants' sentences were not procedurally unreasonable; and (7) Luis Solis-Vasquez's challenge to the district court's restitution order will be discussed in a later opinion. View "United States v. Perez-Vasquez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to a variety of drug and firearm offenses and sentencing him to 160 months' imprisonment, holding that Defendant should have been allowed to withdraw his plea.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to certain charged offenses in exchange for a 120-month sentence. Prior to sentencing, Defendant breached the plea agreement by assaulting a fellow inmate. Thereafter, the government withdrew from the agreement. Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to 160 months' imprisonment. The First Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, there was a fair and just reason for the withdrawal of Defendant's plea, and the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow Defendant to withdraw his plea. View "United States v. Gardner" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence imposed after he pled guilty to drug and firearm conspiracy counts, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant was a manager or supervisor of the drug conspiracy and applying a three-level enhancement.In sentencing Defendant, the district court found that he qualified for a three-level enhancement for being a manager or supervisor of the drug and firearm conspiracies, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(b). On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court's conclusion that he was a manager or supervisor of the drug conspiracy because he directed people to buy firearms and told them where to drive was erroneous. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, in light of the evidence, the district court correctly applied the section 3B1.1(b) enhancement. View "United States v. McKinney" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence Defendant received upon resentencing after he was convicted on two drug-related charges, holding that there was no error in the proceedings.This Court previously vacated Defendant's sentence. On remand, the district court imposed a low-end eighty-four-month term of immurement to be followed by six years of supervised release. Defendant appealed, challenging his six-year mandatory minimum term of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by failing to make a necessary finding; and (2) the court did not find facts that should have been reserved for a jury. View "United States v. Rabb" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to a 130-month term of immurement and refusing to grant him an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and to petit larceny. The district court imposed a downwardly variant sentence of 130 months' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err in denying Defendant an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility; and (2) Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. DeJesus" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the federal convictions and sentences of Defendants - Herzzon Sandoval, Edwin Guzman, Erick Argueta Larios, and Cesar Martinez - stemming from a federal criminal investigation into La Mara Salvatrucha, a transnational criminal organization, in Massachusetts, holding that there was no prejudicial error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Defendants' sufficiency of the evidence challenges to their respective convictions were without merit; (2) there was no merit to Defendants' claims that the district court erred in denying a motion for a continuance due to pretrial publicity or in denying their motion for a mistrial; (3) Defendants' challenges to the court's evidentiary rulings failed; (4) challenges concerning purported misstatements of the evidence in the government's closing argument and purported instructional errors provided no basis for overturning Defendants' convictions; and (5) Defendants' challenges to their sentences failed. View "United States v. Sandoval" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), holding that the district court did not err in denying the petition.In his habeas petition, Petitioner alleged that the trial court violated his constitutional rights to a complete defense and to have effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the exclusion of certain medical evidence, even if error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) trial counsel was not constitutionally deficient for not consulting or calling a child abuse expert who could testify to the effects of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy on fathers like Petitioner. View "Strickland v. Goguen" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the drug conspiracy and distribution convictions of five members of a drug trafficking organization, holding that none of the issues raised by the five defendants translated into reversible error warranting vacatur of their convictions or sentences.Fifty-five individuals were indicted on charges of conspiracy to distribute heroin, cocaine, cocaine base, marijuana, and prescription pills. By the time a jury trial began most of the defendants had pleaded guilty. Five of the defendants who were ultimately convicted appealed their convictions, and some of them appealed their sentences. The defendants were Joel Rivera-Alejandro, Carlos Rivera-Alejandro, Juan Rivera-George, Suanette Ramos- Gonzalez, and Idalia Maldonado-Pena. The First Circuit affirmed the judgments in their entirety, holding that there was no reversible error in this case. View "United States v. Maldonado-Pena" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, fentanyl, and methamphetamines, holding that Defendant's challenges on appeal were unavailing.During a probation compliance check in Defendant's apartment state probation officers discovered a black case containing illegal narcotics. The police then obtained and executed a warrant to search Defendant's apartment and his two cellphones for evidence of drug dealing. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that there was no probable cause to search his cellphones and that the warrant did not adequately specify which files on the phones would be searched. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered from the cellphones; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; and (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error. View "United States v. Lindsey" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and eight counts of aiding or assisting in the filing of a false tax return, holding that Defendant's challenges on appeal were meritless.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) there was no error in the district court's imposition by reference of the conditions of supervised release stated in the United States Probation Office's Presentence Report; and (3) the district court did not err by failing to impose a specific schedule for payment of restitution at the time of sentencing. View "United States v. Nardozzi" on Justia Law