Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Petitioner's successive federal habeas petition, holding that the sentencing judge did not rely on Petitioner's career-offender designation in setting Petitioner's term of imprisonment.In 1998, pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison for drug dealing. The above-Guidelines sentence reflected Petitioner's role in two uncharged violent crimes. In 2018, Petitioner filed his successive federal habeas petition claiming that his status as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines impacted his sentence. Basing his argument on intervening Supreme Court caselaw holding the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) unconstitutional, Petitioner claimed that the new precedent on the ACCA also invalidated the Guidelines classification and requested resentencing to a lesser term of imprisonment. The habeas court denied the petition for habeas relief for failure to show actual prejudice. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the habeas court did not commit clear error that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable probability that his sentence would have been different absent the career-offender designation. View "Bartolomeo v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for three Hobbs Act robberies, conspiring to commit a Racketeer Influenced an Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violation, and other offenses but vacated the district court's sentence and remanded for the limited purpose of reducing Defendant's sentence for the Hobbs Act and RICO counts, holding that the district court exceeded the statutory maximum for these offenses.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court erred in providing a medical care instruction to the jury, but the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of Defendant's guilt; (2) as to Defendant's remaining challenges to his convictions, the district court did not plainly err or abuse its discretion; but (3) Defendant's 360-month sentence for the Hobbs Act and RICO counts exceeded the statutory maximum of 240 months for these offenses, and therefore, the case is remanded for resentencing for these counts. View "United States v. Lopez-Soto" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions of securities and wire fraud and conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) there was sufficient evidence to sustain Defendant's convictions and that, to the extent that the jury instructions may have been overbroad, any error was harmless; (2) this Court need not address whether the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1343, applies extraterritorially because Defendant was convicted under a proper domestic application of the statute; and (3) the district court correctly determined that it lacked the authority to order the government to lodge Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties requests with the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland to seek evidence that may have been favorable to Defendant's defense. View "United States v. McLellan" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of possessing with intent to distribute controlled substances in a protected area and conspiring to distribute controlled substances in a protected area, holding that the district court did not plainly err with respect to any of Defendant's challenges.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not commit plain error in admitting evidence of the conspiracy's activities occurring after he withdrew from the conspiracy or, alternatively, in not instructing the jury to ignore such evidence; (2) the district court did not plainly err in admitting evidence of a drug trafficking organization's violent acts; and (3) the delay between Defendant's indictment and arrest did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. View "United States v. Perez-Couvertier" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that, under the highly deferential standard prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act for federal habeas review of state criminal convictions, Appellant's claims to habeas relief failed.Appellant was convicted in a Massachusetts superior court of murder in the first degree and related crimes. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed the convictions. Appellant subsequently petitioned the District Court for the District of Massachusetts for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition but granted a certificate of appealability. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported Appellant's conviction for first-degree murder as a joint venturer, and the SJC's sufficiency determination was not unreasonable; and (2) the SJC reasonably determined that the trial court's admission into evidence of certain items did not constitute error. View "Gomes v. Silva" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the indictment and affirmed the sentence imposed, holding that the district court correctly denied the motion to dismiss and that the sentence was reasonable.Appellant was charged with conspiring to manufacture, distribute, and import cocaine into the United States. Appellant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the government could not prove the element of the offense that Appellant knew or intended that the cocaine would be sent to the United States. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. Appellant entered into a conditional plea agreement and then appealed. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the district court's denial of Appellant's motion to dismiss, holding that Appellant's challenge to the validity of the indictment failed; and (2) affirmed Defendant's below-guideline sentence, holding that the sentence was reasonable. View "United States v. Alexander" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the imposition of a role-in-the-offense enhancement in connection with Defendant's conviction for racketeering conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), holding that there was no error in Defendant's sentence.Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to conduct enterprise affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. A PSI report applied a three-level role-in-the-offense enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b). The probationer arrived at the enhancement by analyzing Defendant's role in each of the predicate racketeering acts separately and concluded that the enhancement applied only to a murder plot. The government argued that the role enhancement should apply across the board based on Defendant's managerial role in the overall conspiracy. The district court effectively adopted the government's interpretation of the relevant guideline and sentenced Defendant to the statutory maximum sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the role-in-the-offense enhancement is dependent upon the defendant's role in the criminal enterprise as a whole instead of his role in the discrete acts of racketeering activity that underpin the RICO conviction; and (2) the district court's factual finding that Defendant played a managerial or supervisory role in the RICO conspiracy was not plainly erroneous. View "United States v. Lopez" on Justia Law

In these cases against four defendants - Manuel De Jesus Rosario-Perez (Rosario), Jorge Gomez-Gonzalez (Gomez), Bryant Setiawan-Ramos (Setiawan), and Santiago Hernandez-Rosa (Hernandez) - the First Circuit affirmed the various drug and weapons charges as to Rosario, Gomez, and Hernandez but vacated Setiawan's convictions and remanded his case for a new trial, holding that Setiawan's convictions must be set aside on a cumulative error theory.Each defendant was indicted for conspiracy to distribute drugs within 1,000 feet of a school and possession with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. The indictment also charged everyone but Rosario with carrying and using firearms in relation to drug trafficking. Each defendant was convicted of one or more counts. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) most of Defendants' claims were without merit; but (2) the district court's decision to admit evidence that Setiawan killed "Teton," a drug seller, while excluding evidence that a witness named "Cascote" killed Teton was improper, and the cumulative effect of the decision warranted a new trial. View "United States v. Rosario-Perez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's upwardly variant sentence for one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and one count of using a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to drug-related crimes. After a sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to an upwardly variant sentence of 180 months of imprisonment, thus declining to impose the government's requested sentence. On appeal, Defendant challenged both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the 180-month sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Diaz-Rivera" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of 100 months of imprisonment imposed for his convictions of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and illegal possession of a machine gun, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.A probation officer recommended a sentence of forty-one to fifty-one months for Defendant's offenses under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. At sentencing, the Government requested a sentence of at least sixty-three months' imprisonment or, in the alternative, an upward variance. The district court adopted the Guidelines' calculation and then imposed an upward variance of forty-nine months' imprisonment for a total of 100 months' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the sentence was procedurally sound and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Garcia-Mojica" on Justia Law