Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's request for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, holding that the district court erred in finding that Defendant was ineligible for a reduction on the grounds that his offense was not a "covered offense" under the First Step Act.Specifically, the district court concluded that because the penalties for the quantity of controlled substances attributed to Defendant remained the same after passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, he was not convicted for "a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified." The First Circuit reversed and remanded the case, holding that Congress intended to provide potential relief to persons like Defendant whose penalties were dictated by 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C), and therefore, Defendant was convicted for a "covered offense" under Section 404. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's 2018 complaint seeking vacated of a forfeiture order and return of his forfeited property, holding that Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017), did not apply in this case.Plaintiff was convicted of conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, engaging in monetary transactions with criminal deprived property and money laundering arising out of his control of a money-laundering ring. The district court ordered Plaintiff to forfeit the sum of $136,344,231. The district court did not challenge the district court's finding that all of the money at issue passed through a bank account he controlled. Plaintiff later filed a complaint arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in Honeycutt should be applied retroactively to invalidate the forfeiture judgment against him. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim as to each asserted avenue of relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Honeycutt did not apply as a matter of fact to Plaintiff's case given his control over the funds at issue; and (2) Honeycutt did not preclude liability in Plaintiff's case. View "Saccoccia v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court giving Defendant a consecutive 144-month sentence for two robbery convictions rather than making the sentence concurrent with another sentence he was already serving, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence.Defendant pled guilty to two counts of aiding and abetting in interfering with commerce by robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Te district court sentenced Defendant to 144 months each on the counts, to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentence Defendant was already serving for a firearm offense. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in imposing a consecutive, rather than a concurrent, sentence to his sentence for the firearm offense. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence; and (2) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Fuentes-Moreno" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, holding that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.Defendant was sentenced to 108 months' imprisonment for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and an additional six months' imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Defendant appealed his sentence for the controlled substance offense, arguing (1) the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court overruled his objection to a statement included in the Amended Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSR); and (2) the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court allegedly did not consider information showing a lower sentenced would have sufficed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's argument supporting his assertion that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable lacked merit; and (2) it was not substantively unreasonable for the district court to impose the sentence for the controlled substance offense. View "United States v. Arce-Calderon" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for one count of conspiracy and one count of structuring the export of monetary transactions, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Defendant's convictions arose from his role in assisting the leader of conspiracy in smuggling cash through the Logan International Airport in Boston and onto a plane headed to Portuguese islands in the Atlantic Ocean. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence against him; (2) the district court did not err by admitting into evidence certain statements that the leader made to undercover agents and to admit records of Defendant's phone contacts with the leader; (3) there was no merit to Defendant's argument that the district court erred by refusing to issue certain jury instructions that Defendant argued he requested; and (4) Defendant's remaining allegations of error were without merit. View "United States v. Melo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit held that the special measure of constitutional protection to which police officers, in the motor vehicle context, performing community care taking functions are entitled extends to police officers performing community caretaking functions on private premises, including homes.Plaintiff's person and firearms were allegedly seized after Defendants, police officers, entered his home. Plaintiff brought several claims against Defendants, including claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and under state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's federal and state-law claims, concluding that the officers' conduct at Plaintiff's residence constituted a reasonable exercise of their caretaking responsibilities and thus did not violate Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendants' actions did not exceed the proper province of their community caretaking responsibilities. View "Caniglia v. Strom" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of more than three years in prison imposed in connection with his violation of supervised release, holding that the district court did not commit reversible error when she tagged Defendant's drug offense with an A Grade.After seven years in federal prison, Defendant was arrested first for possessing drugs with intent to distribute then for domestic abuse under Puerto Rico law. The federal district judge found Defendant committed a "crime of violence" and a "controlled substance offense" as defined in the federal sentencing guidelines. These crimes, the judge found, were Grade A violations of Defendant's supervised release carrying the stiffest guideline penalties. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence for the district judge to call Defendant's crimes Grade A violations. View "United States v. Garcia-Cartagena" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence of thirty months in federal prison for violating the terms of his supervised release, holding that the district judge misapplied the Guidelines in concluding that Defendant's crime was a Grade A violation under U.S.S.G. 7B1.1(a)(A)(i).Six months after Defendant completed his sentence for federal drug crimes and began his six-year term of supervised release Defendant was charged on "information and belief" with committing aggravated domestic abuse under Puerto Rico law. The complaint did not indicate why the police believed Defendant committed the offense. Defendant pled down to a lesser offense, but, based on the complaint, the federal district court found that Defendant committed the more serious crime, which was a "crime of violence" and a Grade A violation. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that the district judge's Grade A finding, based only on unsubstantiated allegations in a charging document, was clear error that affected the sentence imposed. View "United States v. Colon-Maldonado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession of child pornography, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motions to suppress and for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).After agents executing a search warrant of Defendant's residence discovered digital files containing images and videos of child pornography on Defendant's computers Defendant filed a motion to suppress and, in the alternative, for a Franks hearing. The district court denied both motions. Defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of child pornography. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no evidence that the affidavit contained egregious misrepresentations sufficient to necessitate a Franks hearing to attack the warrant application, let alone to render the warrant invalid due to a misrepresentation; and (2) the warrant was adequately supported and the evidence obtained was admissible. View "United States v. Larson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence entered upon Defendant's guilty plea to one count of possessing child pornography, holding that the district court's decision not to impose a below-guidelines sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant's conviction stemmed from his possession of approximately 13,000 child pornography images. The district court sentenced Defendant to ninety-seven months' imprisonment and twenty years' supervised release, a sentence that was at the low end of the Guidelines Sentencing Range. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that the sentence was not procedurally unreasonable and that Defendant failed to overcome the presumption that the sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Gomera-Rodriguez" on Justia Law