Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for carjacking and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, holding that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.At the time of his sentencing, Defendant was serving a thirty-year prison sentence for unrelated offenses in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The district court sentenced Defendant to eighty-seven months on the carjacking to be served consecutively to the Commonwealth sentence and to five years for use of a firearm. Defendant appealed, challenging his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court's explanation was sufficient to justify its decision to impose the sentence consecutively, rather than concurrently, to the Commonwealth sentence; and (2) the sentence fell within the range of reasonable sentences. View "United States v. Acevedo-Vazquez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for distribution of child pornography and Defendant's sentence, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, one count of distribution of child pornography, and two counts of possession of child pornography. The district court sentenced Defendant to 180 years' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that his conviction of distribution of child pornography could not stand because the difference between the crime it alleged and the one he pleaded guilty to committing resulted in a constructive amendment of the indictment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) as to the constructive amendment challenge, Defendant did not establish the requisite prejudice to show reversible error; (2) Defendant's challenges to his sentence were unavailing; and (3) Defendant's remaining challenges were without merit. View "United States v. Gaccione" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the condition of Appellant's supervised release that he could not contact his preteen daughter for three years without approval from his probation officer, holding that the district court imposed the condition based in part on an untranslated Spanish document in violation of the Jones Act, 48 U.S.C. 864, and the violation was prejudicial.The daughter's mother filed a petition for protective order, written in Spanish, after Appellant threw a beer can in his daughter's direction and hit her face. The government subsequently moved to revoke Appellant's supervised release on the ground that he violated the condition that he not commit another crime. The magistrate judge issued an order finding probable cause that Appellant had committed the crime of abuse, basing its determination, in part, on the untranslated Spanish-language document. The district court revoked Appellant's supervised release and added as a condition of supervision that Appellant not contact his daughter. The First Circuit reversed and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that the government violated the Jones Act by submitting to the magistrate judge the protective order petition without supplying an English translation, and the error was prejudicial. View "United States v. Muniz-Lopez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the district court's judgment denying Defendant's motion to vacate his 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction and to resentence him without a career offender enhancement, holding that because Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) established that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines' residual clause before United States v. Booker, 54 U.S. 220 (2005), was decided was too vague to constitutionally enhance a defendant's sentence, Defendant's claims were timely.Defendant was convicted under section 924(c). The judge classified Defendant as a career offender under section 4B1.1 of the guidelines. Thereafter, the Supreme Court decided Booker, which held that the mandatory Guidelines system was unconstitutional. Thereafter, the Supreme Court announced a new rule of law in Johnson that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague. Defendant moved to vacate his conviction and sentence, arguing that the Court's reasoning in Johnson made similar residual clauses in section 942(c) and section 4B1.2(a) unconstitutionally vague as well. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit vacated the judgment, holding (1) Johnson dictates that 4B1.2(a)'s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) as a result, Defendant asserted the same right newly recognized in Johnson, making his petition timely. View "Shea v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for federal charges of sex trafficking, drug trafficking, and interstate transportation of a person for prostitution in violation of the Mann Act, holding that the district court did not err in applying a "vulnerable victim" enhancement.At sentencing, the district court determined that Defendant's victim was a vulnerable victim for purposes of applying a two-level enhancement. The court then sentenced Defendant to 320 months' imprisonment on the sex and drug trafficking counts and to concurrent 120-month sentences on the Mann Act counts. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that Defendant's sentence was not affected by the district court's conclusion that the enhancement for vulnerable victims was warranted under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and therefore, any alleged error in the application of that enhancement would have been harmless. View "United States v. Graham" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for his role as a leader and organizer of a major drug-trafficking organization, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's pro se motions to withdraw his guilty plea and to appoint new counsel.Defendant entered into a plea agreement with the government and, pursuant to that agreement, was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. Defendant later made a statement that the district court construed as making a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and a motion to appoint new counsel. After a hearing, the court denied both motions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to appoint new counsel; and (2) did not err in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "United States v. Valdez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of transporting child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography, holding that Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed two special conditions of supervised release.Defendant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. After a hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to 156 months in prison and imposed conditions of supervised release that included restrictions on Defendant's contact with children. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's 156-month sentence was not outside the universe of reasonable sentences; and (2) there was a sufficient relationship between Defendant's criminal conduct and the conditions limiting his contact with his son. View "United States v. Benoit" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the ruling of the district court granting Defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, holding that the district court did not err.After Defendant was found guilty the district court granted Defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, finding that the evidence was insufficient to permit a reasonable juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knowingly either agreed to participate or participated in the alleged conspiracy. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was insufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant agreed to participate or participated in the drug conspiracy. View "United States v. Guzman-Ortiz" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and for unlawfully possessing a machine-gun but remanded for the district court to docket a sealed copy of the written statement of reasons (SOR) in order for Defendant to prepare his appeal, holding that there was no basis for withholding the SOR from Defendant.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not commit procedural error by unduly relying on conjecture to impose an upward variant sentence; (2) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable because it was within the "universe of reasonable sentences"; and (3) practice and policy required that defense counsel have access to the SOR. View "United States v. Morales-Negron" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for several sex crimes, including using a facility and means of interstate commerce to knowingly induce a thirteen-year-old female to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), and transporting minors in a commonwealth with the same illicit intent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(a), holding that there was no reversible error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) there was sufficient evidence to support each one of Defendant's convictions; (2) any error in letting a law enforcement officer testify about text messages taken off Defendant's cell phone and about an app without being qualified as an expert in "cell phone extractions or forensic analysis" was harmless; and (3) Defendant's sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Montijo-Maysonet" on Justia Law