Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence that he received for his conviction for possession of a machine gun, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.After the district court concluded that Defendant was competent Defendant pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 922(o) and 924(a)(2). After a sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a ninety-six-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) even assuming that Defendant failed to preserve his procedural challenges, there was no clear error in the district court's fact-finding; and (2) under the totality of the circumstances, the district court's chosen sentence was not outside the "universe of reasonable sentences." View "United States v. Lopez-Delgado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the district court did not err in imposing a sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm "in connection with another felony offense."Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. The sentencing court applied a four-level enhancement for handling at least eight firearms, a four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, and a two-level enhancement for obstructing justice. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court's application of the four-level sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the finding that Defendant committed "another felony offense" and possessed a firearm "in connection with" such offense. View "United States v. Newton" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions, entered pursuant to his guilty plea, for eight counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and one count of possession of child pornography and dismissed Defendant's challenges to his sentence, holding that that the district court did not err.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) th district court did not plainly error in concluding that the factual foundation for Defendant's plea to two of his eight convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor sufficed to give it a reasoned basis to believe that Defendant actually committed the crime to which he was admitting guilt; and (2) the appeal waiver in Defendant's plea agreement barred this Court's consideration of the substance of Defendant's challenges to the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. View "United States v. Goodman" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for drug-trafficking and firearms offenses, holding that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the evidence obtained from a number of warrant-backed searches.After he was charged, Defendant filed several motions to suppress stemming from the seizures and searches of cellphones, a hotel room, a storage locker, and a Connecticut apartment. The district court denied all of the motions. Defendant subsequently entered a conditional plea to two charges. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was foreclosed from raising on appeal his claims regarding the traffic stop; (2) search warrants used to gather evidence against Defendant were supported by probable cause and otherwise valid; (3) Defendant was foreclosed from raising on appeal new arguments regarding the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider various suppression rulings; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Defendant failed to establish a fair and just reason for withdrawing his conditional guilty plea. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution based on his prior conviction in a Commonwealth court for a local drug offense, holding that Defendant met his burden to make a prima facie case that he had been prosecuted twice for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws.On March 15, 2016, Defendant pleaded guilty to a violation of Article 406 of the Puerto Rico Controlled Substances Act. About sixteen months later, Defendant was named in a federal indictment charging him with five drug-related federal offenses, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.c. 846. Defendant moved to dismiss the section 846 conspiracy count on double jeopardy grounds, alleging that his prior Article 406 conviction was for the same criminal conduct that the section 846 count charged him with committing. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit reversed, holding that Defendant met his burden of presenting evidence to establish a prima facie non frivolous double jeopardy claim, and the government failed to meet its burden to rebut it. View "United States v. Reyes-Correa" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated in part the convictions and sentences that Victor Lara and Kourtney Williams (together, Defendants) each received in connection with a robbery in Maine, holding that Defendants' convictions for violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c), which makes it a crime to use a firearm "during and in relation to" a "crime of violence" could not stand.After a jury trial, Defendants were found guilty of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and of violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Defendants both received a total prison sentence of 184 months. The First Circuit held (1) conspiracy to commit Hobbs act robbery does not qualify as a "crime of violence" under section 924(c), and therefore, Defendants' convictions for violating section 924(c) must be reversed; (2) Defendants were not entitled to relief on their claims of instructional error; and (3) Defendants' remaining allegations of error were unavailing. View "United States v. Lara" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed Defendant's conviction for transporting a minor in interstate or foreign commerce or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, holding that the trial judge violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to in-person confrontation when he allowed the victim to testify by two-way close-circuit television and without making specific on the record findings.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) 2423(a)'s ban on transporting a minor to commit a sex crime applies to transportation without Puerto Rico, which is a "commonwealth" of the United States under the statute; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; (3) the judge properly instructed the jury on the elements of the Puerto Rico crimes the government alleged Defendant had intended to commit at her destination; but (4) the judge violated Defendant's right to confront the victim in person absent a compelling need for remote testimony, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "United States v. Cotto-Flores" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions of aiding and abetting the wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information and obstructing a criminal investigation of a health care offense, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) inferring from certain evidence that Defendant knew that protected information was being accessed was neither unreasonable, insupportable, nor overly speculative, and therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction of aiding and abetting the wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for obstructing a criminal investigation of a health care offense. View "United States v. Luthra" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence of forty-two months' imprisonment, a year above the top of the guideline sentencing range, for illegal possession of a machine gun, holding that the sentencing court erred by varying upward from the range without adequately distinguishing Defendant's case from the mine-run machine gun possession case.Defendant entered a guilty plea to a single count charging him with illegal possession of a machine gun. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an upwardly variant term of forty-two months' imprisonment. The First Circuit vacated the sentence, holding that the sentencing court abused its discretion in varying upward from a property calculated guideline sentencing range without identifying some special characteristic attributable either to Defendant or to the offense of conviction serving to remove this case from the garden-variety machine gun possession case. View "United States v. Rivera-Berrios" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for three counts of transmitting threatening interstate communications by telephone and sentence of twenty-seven months' imprisonment, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order a competency evaluation sua sponte.On appeal, Defendant's sole claim of error was that the district court erred by failing to order a competency evaluation under 18 U.S.C. 4241(a) sua sponte. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that where the record revealed no reasonable cause to believe that a substantial question existed concerning Defendant's competency to stand trial, the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order a competency evaluation sua sponte. View "United States v. Malmstrom" on Justia Law