Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence in connection with Defendant's guilty plea to reentering the United States illegally as a removed alien, holding that his mid-range sentence of forty months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release was both substantively and procedurally reasonable.Defendant pleaded guilty to reentering the United States illegally as a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2). The district court sentenced Defendant to forty months' imprisonment, followed by a supervised release term of three years. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly treated the properly calculated guideline sentencing range as the starting point in determining Defendant's sentence, and the district court properly explained the basis for the sentence; and (2) the sentence was substantively reasonable because the sentencing court gave a plausible sentencing rationale and reached a defensible result. View "United States v. Abreu-Garcia" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the Town of Duxbury, Massachusetts and the Town's chief of police, and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983, holding that Plaintiff could not reasonably have expected privacy in his phone service provider's cell and home phone records.In 2015, the chief of police opened an internal investigation concerning Plaintiff, a police officer with the Town. In 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that Defendants compelled Plaintiff to turn over his phone records in connection with the investigation and that this constituted an illegal warrantless search in violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that a phone subscriber has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone service provider's records of the numbers that the subscriber has dialed and from which the subscriber as received calls, and Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records simply because he asked for a copy of the records at issue. View "Johnson v. Town of Duxbury, Massachusetts" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of eighty-four months of imprisonment for attempted possession of child pornography, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant pleaded guilty to the offense of attempted possession of child pornography and admitted that he attempted to take photographs of a naked fourteen-year-old female victim. The district court sentenced Defendant to an upwardly variant sentence of eighty-four months' imprisonment, followed by ten years of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding (1) the district court did not commit procedural error by relying on the government's sentencing memorandum and by crediting the victim's statements; and (2) the facts of this case fully justified the sentence. View "United States v. Montalvo-Febus" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's within-guidelines sentence of eighty-seven months' imprisonment and fifteen years' supervised release for possession of child pornography, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence.Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2). After a sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a sentence of eighty-seven months' imprisonment and fifteen years' supervised release. On appeal, Defendant challenged both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Hassan-Saleh-Mohamad" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court in connection with Defendant's conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.The district court sentenced Defendant to an incarcerate sentence of sixty months, nineteen months above the upper end of the advisory guidelines sentencing range. On appeal, Defendant argued that the sentence (1) was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, and (2) was substantively unreasonable because it was too harsh. The First Circuit court affirmed, holding (1) there was no clear or obvious error in the sentencing court's explication of the factors that it considered; and (2) Defendant failed to show that the sentencing court abused its discretion in imposing an upwardly variant sentence. View "United States v. Mendez-Baez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court in connection with Defendant's guilty plea to conspiracy to import a controlled substance and unlawful entry into the United States, holding that the sentence was substantively reasonable.Defendant faced a 120-month mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for his conspiracy to import a controlled substance conviction. The sentencing judge found that Defendant qualified for the safety valve exception to the mandatory minimum sentence but nevertheless imposed a 135-month term of imprisonment to run concurrently with a six month term for the second conviction. Defendant challenged his 135-month sentence on appeal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the sentence was substantively reasonable and that there were no reasoning errors on the part of the district court. View "United States v. Reyes-Gomez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the imposition of an upwardly variant sentence of thirty-six months' imprisonment following a guilty plea by Defendant to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the sentence was neither substantively nor procedurally unreasonable.As to Defendant's arguments on appeal regarding procedural reasonableness, the Court held that the district court (1) did not plainly err in considering Defendant's arrests not leading to convictions as a matter leading to an upward variance; (2) adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; and (3) did not plainly err in varying upward from the government's sentencing recommendation. The Court further held that as to Defendant's challenges to substantive reasonableness, Defendant's arguments either failed on waiver or simply failed. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Reyes" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of conviction on an embezzlement count brought against David Tkhilaishvili and otherwise affirmed the judgments of conviction against the three defendants, David and Jambulat Tkhilaishvili, holding that David's conviction for one count of embezzlement was improper.A jury convicted Defendants of conspiring to commit Hobbs Act extortion and other crimes. During the pendency of these appeals the government conceded that David's conviction on one count of embezzlement could not be sustained. The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendants' Hobbs Act extortion convictions; (2) there was no instructional error; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of Defendants' prior violent acts; (4) David's conviction on one embezzlement count must be reversed; and (5) there was sufficient evidence to support David's conviction on the other embezzlement count. View "United States v. Tkhilaishvili" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction based on his guilty plea for production of child pornography, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.After entering his guilty plea, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea, arguing that his counsel, in advising him with respect to the guilty plea, had provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel by not having moved pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to suppress certain evidence. Acknowledging that Defendant would be entitled to withdraw his guilty plea if his counsel had failed to file a meritorious suppression motion, the district court held a hearing. The court denied Defendant's motion, concluding that Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights had not been violated. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. View "United States v. Powell" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for various federal carjacking and firearm offenses and the 600-month prison sentence imposed by the district court, holding that Defendant's challenges to the court's evidentiary rulings and to his sentence were unavailing.Defendant was convicted of carjacking, use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, carjacking resulting in sexual assault, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. After a sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to a total of 600 months in prison. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress statements that he had made to FBI agents following his arrest in which he confessed to carjackings and a sexual assault; (2) the district court did not err in refusing to admit a Facebook photo of one of Defendant's friends; and (3) Defendant's prison sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Galindo-Serrano" on Justia Law