Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence for distribution of heroin and fentanyl, holding that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable.After a hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to 168 months in prison, a sentence that fell within the range stipulated in the plea agreement, as well as between defense counsel’s recommendation and the government’s recommendation. On appeal, Defendant argued that while the sentence was within the range stipulated in the plea agreement, the court should have sentenced him to the stipulated range’s lower bound. Noting that Defendant’s arguments were largely a disagreement with the weight the district court assigned particular factors, the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the factors amply justified the sentence imposed. View "United States v. Gilley" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm an ammunition and sentence to time served plus three weeks of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, holding that any error was harmless.Specifically, the Court found (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of the firearm; (2) the district court did not err in granting the government’s motion in limine to preclude Defendant from asserting a necessity defense; and (3) the district court committed a significant procedural error in calculating Defendant’s Guidelines sentencing range, but the error was harmless. View "United States v. Henderson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence of thirty months’ imprisonment for knowingly failing to update his registration, holding that the district court neither committed clear error in finding that Defendant perjured himself at trial or in imposing a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice.Defendant, a registered sex offender, was convicted of knowingly failing to update his registration, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2250(a). Finding that Defendant had committed perjury when he testified at trial in his own defense, the district court imposed a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement. The court then sentenced Defendant at the middle of his Guidelines sentencing range. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in applying the sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice because the record provided clear support for the finding that Defendant committed perjury. View "United States v. Nagell" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s sentence of forty months for illegal possession of a machine gun, holding that there was no reversible error or abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision.After Appellant pled guilty to the offense, the district court calculated a Sentencing Guidelines range of twenty-four to thirty months. Ultimately, the district court imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of forty months. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erroneously relied on disputed facts and abused its discretion in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not err in adopting the facts as stated in the presentence report; and (2) the district court acted well within its discretion in imposing a forty-month sentence on Appellant. View "United States v. Severino-Pacheco" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s order revoking Appellant’s supervised release, holding that the district court’s decision was not an abuse of discretion.In 2009, Appellant was sentenced to a term of seventy-eight months of imprisonment for a drug offense, later reduced to sixty-three months and an eight-year period of supervised release. The district court subsequently found that Appellant unlawfully possessed and distributed a controlled substance and revoked Appellant's supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court’s decision revoking Appellant’s supervised release was not an abuse of discretion and that the court did not violate Appellant’s due process rights. View "United States v. Bodon-Lespier" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed Defendant’s appeal from his sentence as moot because Defendant had already completed serving the custodial sentence he attempted to challenge on appeal.Defendant pled guilty to unlawfully attempting to enter the United States after being removed therefrom following an aggravated felony conviction. The district court imposed a twenty-one month custodial sentence following by three years of supervised release. Defendant appealed his custodial sentence, and his appeal was still pending when he completed his custodial term and began serving his term of supervised release. The First Circuit summarily dismissed the appeal as moot because the appeal, even if successful, would not lead to any effectual relief. View "United States v. Suarez-Reyes" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgments of the district court convicting Alba Pena and Indranis Rocheford, sisters, of multiple counts of wire fraud and Rocheford’s sentence to thirty-three months in prison and three years of supervised release, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain both Rocheford’s and Pena’s convictions; (2) there was no merit to Pena’s contention that the district court erred by now allowing her to testify as to certain witness statements and that she was prejudiced in her ability to mount a “good faith” defense to the wire fraud charges; (3) the district court did not err in failing to give a particular instruction concerning unanimity; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Rocheford’s sentence. View "United States v. Pena" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment followed by thirty-six months of supervised release, holding that there was no error requiring reversal of the conviction or sentence.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) Defendant’s challenges to several of the district court’s evidentiary rulings were unavailing; and (3) on plain error review, Defendant’s three claims of sentencing error did not amount to plain error. View "United States v. Obiora" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence of 168 months in prison imposed in connection with his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute oxycodone and cocaine, holding that Defendant’s appeal waiver was enforceable and barred his appeal.Defendant’s guilty plea, the result of a plea bargain with the government, included an express waiver of Defendant’s right to appeal his conviction or sentence if his sentence rested on a base offense level no lower than twenty-six and no higher than thirty. At sentencing, the district judge ruled that Defendant had a base offense level of thirty. The First Circuit held that Defendant’s appeal waiver barred his challenges to his sentence because he failed to meet the plain error test set forth in United States v. Borrero-Acevedo, 533 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2008), or to establish that that the miscarriage of justice exception established in United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001), applied. View "United States v. Morillo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Appellant, who was serving a life sentence in a state correctional facility, holding that the state rulings challenged by Appellant were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.In 1995, Appellant was convicted by a Massachusetts jury of first degree murder. Appellant later field this petition for habeas corpus, which the district court denied. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) did not unreasonably reject Appellant’s arguments that the trial judge’s omission of a jury instruction requested by Appellant and the trial judge’s giving of another instruction requested by the prosecution violated his due process rights; (2) the SJC did not unreasonably reject Appellant’s argument that misconduct in the prosecutor’s closing arguments violated his due process rights; (3) the admission of statements made by non-testifying co-conspirators did not result in a fundamentally unfair trial; and (4) the SJC did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court case law in affirming the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for a mistrial. View "Hardy v. Maloney" on Justia Law