Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2017, Ángel Manuel Carmona-Alomar was found in possession of a modified 9mm Glock pistol, ammunition, marijuana, and Percocet pills during a vehicle search by Puerto Rico Police. He admitted ownership of the firearm and ammunition. Subsequently, he was charged and pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and possession of a machinegun. He was sentenced to thirty months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. In 2020, while on supervised release, Carmona was again found with a modified firearm and ammunition, leading to new charges and a supervised release violation.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico sentenced Carmona to sixty months in prison for the new charges and an additional two years for the supervised release violation, to be served consecutively. The court justified the upward variance from the sentencing guidelines by citing Carmona's repeated offenses, lack of remorse, and the serious nature of machinegun possession, particularly in the context of Puerto Rico's gun violence issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Carmona argued that the District Court erred procedurally by not providing case-specific reasons for the upward variance and by relying on factors already accounted for in the guidelines. He also contended that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit found no merit in these arguments, noting that the District Court had appropriately considered Carmona's repeated offenses and the specific context of gun violence in Puerto Rico. The appellate court affirmed both the sixty-month sentence for the new charges and the two-year sentence for the supervised release violation, concluding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. View "US v. Carmona-Alomar" on Justia Law

Hector Rodriguez-Pena was convicted in 1993 for his involvement in a drug trafficking conspiracy, firearms possession, and the attempted murder of federal law enforcement officers. He was sentenced to a total of 622 months' imprisonment, which was later reduced to 570 months. Over the years, Rodriguez-Pena has repeatedly challenged his sentence and conviction through various legal avenues, including direct appeals and motions for sentence modifications, all of which were denied.Rodriguez-Pena filed a motion for compassionate release in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, citing his vulnerability to COVID-19 due to his health conditions and the prevalence of the virus in his prison facility, FCI Coleman Low. He argued that his medical conditions, including high blood pressure and hyperlipidemia, increased his risk of severe complications from COVID-19. The district court denied his motion, concluding that he did not demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction, particularly noting his vaccination status and the low COVID-19 infection rates in his facility.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Rodriguez-Pena's risk from COVID-19, given his vaccination status and the conditions at FCI Coleman Low, did not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. The court also noted that the district court properly considered the evidence and arguments presented, including the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the current state of the pandemic within the prison. View "US v. Rodriguez-Pena" on Justia Law

The appellant, Calvin Mendes, pleaded guilty to multiple drug-related charges and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to concurrent thirty-month prison terms followed by three years of supervised release. Mendes repeatedly violated the conditions of his supervised release, leading to three revocations. The first revocation resulted in a one-day prison sentence and a new nineteen-month supervised release term. The second revocation also resulted in a one-day prison sentence and a new twelve-month supervised release term. The third revocation was due to multiple violations, including drug use and associating with a felon.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a third revocation hearing. The court agreed not to consider one of the alleged violations (Violation V) on the merits but noted that the guideline sentencing range would be affected. The government recommended a thirty-month prison sentence, citing Mendes' repeated violations and lack of respect for the law. Mendes argued for a lesser sentence, highlighting his mental health struggles and lack of housing. The district court sentenced Mendes to thirty months in prison with no supervised release to follow.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Mendes argued that his sentence was procedurally flawed because the district court did not adequately explain the upward variance, improperly considered unproven criminal conduct, and relied on community-based considerations. The Court of Appeals found that the district court provided a sufficient explanation for the upward variance, emphasizing Mendes' repeated violations. The court also determined that the district court did not rely on unproven criminal conduct or improper community-based considerations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentence. View "United States v. Mendes" on Justia Law

Damian Cortez was involved in a criminal case where he was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, and possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. The government alleged that Cortez was part of a Massachusetts gang known as "NOB" and was involved in various criminal activities, including drug trafficking. Cortez conditionally pled guilty to the charges after his motions to suppress evidence obtained from two search warrants were denied by the district court.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Cortez's motions to suppress evidence seized from an apartment in Attleboro, Massachusetts, and from two cell phones. Cortez argued that the affidavit supporting the search warrant for the apartment did not establish probable cause that he was involved in a RICO conspiracy or that he resided in the apartment. He also requested a Franks hearing, claiming that the affidavit contained false statements and omissions. The district court found that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause and denied the request for a Franks hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the affidavit established probable cause to believe that Cortez was involved in a RICO conspiracy and that he resided in the Attleboro apartment. The court noted that the affidavit included evidence from GPS data, photographic evidence, and direct observations linking Cortez to the apartment. The court also found that Cortez did not make a substantial preliminary showing that the affidavit contained false statements or omissions necessary to warrant a Franks hearing. Therefore, the court upheld the denial of the motion to suppress and the request for a Franks hearing. View "United States v. Cortez" on Justia Law

In 2009, Guillermo González-Santillan fled Puerto Rico to avoid his sentencing hearing for conspiracy to commit money laundering, after pleading guilty as part of a plea agreement. He remained a fugitive for thirteen years until he was apprehended in the Dominican Republic and returned to the United States. Upon his return, the government sought a two-point obstruction-of-justice sentencing enhancement due to his abscondment.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico initially accepted González-Santillan's guilty plea and scheduled a sentencing hearing. However, after he failed to appear, the court revoked his bail and issued an arrest warrant. Following his capture, the court ordered an updated presentence report, which included the government's recommended obstruction-of-justice enhancement. González-Santillan objected, arguing that the plea agreement barred the enhancement and that the government failed to prove willfulness in his failure to appear.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the obstruction-of-justice enhancement. The appellate court found that González-Santillan's thirteen-year abscondment clearly demonstrated willfulness, as evidenced by his failure to attend a scheduled probation meeting, his sentencing hearing, and his subsequent flight to another country. The court also concluded that the government did not breach the plea agreement by seeking the enhancement, as González-Santillan's abscondment constituted a material breach of the agreement, thereby releasing the government from its original obligations.The First Circuit affirmed González-Santillan's seventy-month sentence, upholding the district court's application of the obstruction-of-justice enhancement. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Santillan" on Justia Law

The case involves Wilfredo Isaac-Delgado, who was serving a term of supervised release after completing a prison term for federal offenses related to a bank robbery. During his supervised release, Isaac tested positive for multiple controlled substances, failed to abide by the regulations of his residential reentry center, and was charged with violating Puerto Rico's domestic violence statute for harassing a former romantic partner. Isaac's probation officer detailed these actions, each of which violated the conditions of Isaac's supervised release, in two motions to the district court. Those motions requested that the court revoke Isaac's supervised release. Isaac informed the court that he would not be contesting the violations described by his probation officer. Instead, he identified mitigating circumstances that, in his view, justified a sentence within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range.The district court, relying on the uncontested representations about Isaac's conduct from the probation officer, imposed a sentence more than three times longer than the high end of the Guidelines range. Isaac challenged that sentence as procedurally unreasonable. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found no procedural flaw and affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court. The court held that Isaac's admission to the violations detailed in the probation officer's motions provided a sufficiently reliable basis for the factual finding regarding his prescribed medication. The court also held that the district court satisfied its obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) by considering and rejecting Isaac's argument that his mental health and substance abuse treatment was working. View "United States v. Delgado" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Agustin Vinas, who was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1958 for attempting to hire a hitman to murder a contractor and his business partner. Vinas, a subcontractor, claimed that the contractor owed him $8,500 for construction work and had threatened to harm him and his family when he tried to collect the debt. Vinas was arrested after a series of meetings with an undercover law enforcement officer posing as a hitman. He pleaded guilty to using facilities of interstate commerce in the commission of murder-for-hire, and the government agreed to dismiss the second count related to interstate travel in the commission of murder-for-hire.The District Court for the District of Rhode Island sentenced Vinas to time served, which amounted to nearly two years in pretrial detention. The government had recommended a sentence of ten years' imprisonment, arguing that a substantial sentence was necessary for specific and general deterrence. However, the defense argued for a sentence of time served, citing Vinas's attempts to peacefully collect the debt, the threats he received from the contractor, his mental health issues, and his efforts towards rehabilitation while in pretrial custody.The government appealed the sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable given the seriousness of the crime. The government also contended that the District Court had categorically refused to consider general deterrence and had created a disparity with defendants in other cases who were given longer sentences for the same statutory violation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, finding that the sentence was within the expansive universe of reasonable sentences and that the District Court had adequately considered the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Court of Appeals also found that the government had not preserved its arguments regarding general deterrence and sentencing disparity, and that these arguments did not meet the plain error standard. View "United States v. Vinas" on Justia Law

Ronald Tilley, the appellant, was convicted for robbing a credit union in Bangor, Maine, in 2019. His pre-sentence investigation report (PSI Report) revealed two prior convictions involving potential sexual misconduct, leading to a suggestion for special conditions of supervised release requiring Tilley to participate in sex-offender treatment. The first conviction in 2005 involved an incident where Tilley's then-wife accused him of choking and sexually assaulting her. The second conviction in 2008 was for violating a protective order and involved sexually explicit text messages allegedly exchanged between Tilley and his underage niece. Tilley objected to the sex-offender treatment conditions, leading to a compromise requiring him to undergo a Sexual Offense Assessment and Treatment Evaluation (SOATE).The SOATE, conducted by a licensed clinical social worker, placed Tilley in the "well below average risk" category for sexual recidivism due to the time elapsed since his last sexual misconduct. However, the assessment recommended caution due to a deceptive response in a sexual history polygraph. The SOATE also diagnosed Tilley with antisocial personality disorder and opioid use disorder, and recommended that he have no unsupervised contact with minors and participate in weekly group therapy for sexually problematic behavior.Based on the SOATE report, the government petitioned to add several special conditions to Tilley's supervised release terms, including participation in sex-offender treatment and restrictions on associating with minors. Tilley objected to these conditions, arguing that they were not supported by his previous convictions and that the relevance of these convictions was significantly mitigated by the time elapsed without any sexual misconduct incidents.The United States District Court for the District of Maine granted the government's petition, finding that the proposed modifications promoted the goals of supervised release. The court also found the conditions restricting Tilley's association with minors to be proportionate and reasonably related to the goals of supervised release and his history and characteristics.Tilley appealed, arguing that the district court relied on "clearly erroneous facts" in imposing the modified conditions. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case for abuse of discretion and found no clear error. The court upheld the district court's decision, concluding that the modified conditions were reasonable and supported by the record. View "US v. Tilley" on Justia Law

In 2019, Jason Candelario and three co-defendants conspired to rob a Maine resident of drugs and money. During the robbery, one of the co-defendants shot the victim, who survived. Two years later, a federal grand jury indicted the four defendants. In 2022, Candelario pleaded guilty to charges including conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery, interference with commerce by violence, and illegal possession of a firearm. His co-defendants also pleaded guilty to various charges.The district court calculated a guideline sentencing range of 140 to 175 months for Candelario. Despite Candelario's request for a 120-month sentence citing mitigating factors such as a difficult childhood and genuine remorse, the court imposed a 175-month sentence. The court found this sentence appropriate due to the seriousness of the crime, Candelario's criminal history, the risk of recidivism, and the need for deterrence.Candelario appealed his sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, arguing that it was substantively unreasonable and created an unwarranted disparity with the sentences imposed on his co-defendants. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that Candelario's sentence was both reasonable and proportionate. The court noted that the co-defendants had lower guideline sentencing ranges, played different roles in the robbery, and cooperated with the government, which justified their lower sentences. The court also found that the district court had provided a plausible sentencing rationale and a defensible result. View "United States v. Candelario" on Justia Law

The case involves Irvin Abreu, who pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a child. The district court sentenced him to 315 months in prison, applying an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence of 300 months due to his prior state-law conviction for enticement of a child under the age of sixteen. Abreu appealed, arguing that his prior state-law conviction should not trigger the twenty-five-year minimum for his federal crime.Previously, the district court had determined during pre-trial proceedings that Abreu's prior conviction did trigger the twenty-five-year mandatory minimum under § 2251(e). Abreu subsequently changed his plea to guilty, and at sentencing, the district court considered a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range of 300 to 327 months due to the mandatory minimum sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court agreed with the district court's ruling that the enhancement does apply, concluding that the Massachusetts child-enticement statute is divisible and that Abreu's prior offense is related to the generic crimes listed in § 2251(e). The court also rejected Abreu's argument that § 2251(e) is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. View "US v. Abreu" on Justia Law