Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court in connection with Defendant's plea of guilty to a single count charging him with drug distribution in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), holding that the sentence was supportable when viewed as an upward variance.Relying on a finding that a death resulted from the offense of conviction in this case, the district court imposed an above-the-range term of imprisonment. The court justified the sentence both as an upward departure and an upward variance. On appeal, Defendant challenged his sixty-month sentence both procedurally and substantively. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) any error in invoking a departure guideline was harmless where the district court would have imposed exactly the same sentence by means of a variance; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering in its decision to impose an upward variance the fact that an individual died after using the fentanyl-laced substance knowingly sold to him by Defendant; and (3) the sentence was not outside the universe of reasonable sentencing outcomes and therefore was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Heindenstrom" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and dismissed without prejudice Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.Defendant was convicted of twelve counts of making a materially false statement to a federal agency. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence; (2) Defendant was not denied her federal constitutional right to be present at any stage of the criminal proceeding; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in providing a so-called "nullification instruction" to the jury; (4) Defendant waived a duplicity challenge to certain counts; and (5) the record was not sufficiently developed to permit appellate consideration of Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with his guilty plea and conviction on charges of bank fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant was convicted on charges of bank fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud. The district court sentenced Defendant to thirty-six months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not commit procedural errors in calculating Defendant's Guidelines sentencing range; and (2) Defendant's challenge to the substantive reasonableness of her sentence was unavailing. View "United States v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of 240 months' imprisonment imposed in connection with his guilty plea to one count of possession of child pornography and one count of accessing child pornography with intent to view, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.The district court sentenced Defendant to the statutory maximum sentence on each count, to be served concurrently. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in applying enhancements given for a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse of minors and for obstruction of justice; (2) the acceptance of responsibility reduction was properly denied; and (3) the district court's imposition of the statutory maximum sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Coffin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of drug trafficking charges, including conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, and Defendant's sentence of 136 months in prison, holding that no reversible error occurred in the proceedings below.Pursuant to a search warrant, federal agents searched Defendant's apartment and found a stolen gun, more than $30,000 in cash, more than a kilo of heroin, and other narcotics and drug paraphernalia. Defendant pleaded guilty to several drug trafficking charges. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the trial judge did not err by (1) denying Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence from his apartment; (2) denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea; (3) deciding not to appoint new counsel and to let Defendant handle his sentencing pro se; and (4) failing to set a lower guideline sentencing range. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Arias" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying the motions to suppress filed by Defendants Cuwan Merritt and Michael Artis, the district court's ruling admitting co-conspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) and 403 and United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1977), and Defendants' convictions of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, holding that Defendants were not entitled to relief.In denying Defendants' motions to suppress drugs found on each Defendant the trial court found that police had probable cause to stop an automobile in which Defendants were known to be traveling with two confidential informants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendants failed to show that the police lacked probable cause to arrest them before a vehicle stop; and (2) the district court properly admitted the out-of-court statements made by a co-conspirator. View "United States v. Merritt" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress his booking fingerprints as the fruit of what he argued was an unlawful arrest, holding that because the fingerprints were obtained for routine booking purposes there was no basis in the record for suppression of the fingerprint evidence.During a law enforcement scheme targeting a stolen identity refund fraud scheme, Defendant was administratively arrested for unlawful presence in the United States. Defendant was fingerprinted during a routine booking and later charged with multiple counts related to his involvement in the scheme. Defendant moved to suppress his booking fingerprints. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant was arrested without probable cause but that the fingerprint evidence was admissible under the doctrine of inevitable discovery. The First Circuit affirmed, albeit on different grounds, holding that where the fingerprints were not obtained for any purpose other than routine booking the evidence could not be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. View "United States v. Cruz-Mercedes" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of four counts of filing false tax returns and one count of attempting to obstruct the internal-revenue laws and the sentence imposed in connection with the conviction, holding that there was no error or plain error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the trial judge did not commit plain error by admitting for impeachment purposes a false-statement conviction Defendant incurred in 2006; (2) Defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that any error in the jury instructions affected his substantial rights; and (3) the trial judge did not err by imposing a $286,433 restitution amount recommended by the probation officer in her pre-sentence report. View "United States v. Takesian" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed in connection with Defendant's conviction of conspiring to possess and distribute heroin and fentanyl, holding that the district court did not err in adopting the government's estimate of the heroin attributable to Defendant.The district court adopted the district court's estimate and found Defendant responsible for more than one kilogram of heroin. The district court then fixed the guideline sentencing range as fifty-seven to seventy-one months of imprisonment and imposed a sentence of sixty-six months. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court's drug quantity determination. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in adopting the government's estate where that estimate, if anything, understated Defendant's involvement. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the district court's sentence imposed in connection with Defendant's conviction for sexual exploitation of a child, access with intent to view child pornography, and possession of child pornography, holding that the district court erred in applying the 2016 Guidelines Sentencing Manual to two ungrouped, later-committed offenses in calculating the offense level for an offense committed in 2001.Defendant pleaded guilty to all offenses under the same indictment, and the district court sentenced Defendant to a 196-month term of incarceration. The 2016 version of the manual, as compared to the version in effect in 2001, resulted in a high total offense level. Further, the court gave no explanation for why it chose the sentence or for why it would have done so even if it knew it was upwardly variant. The First Circuit remanded the case for resentencing, holding (1) application of the subsequent manual to the prior, ungrouped offense violated the Ex Post Facto Clause; and (2) the district court plainly erred in providing no justification for the resulting upward variance. View "United States v. Mantha" on Justia Law