Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence for federal carjacking and weapons counts, holding that Defendant’s arguments on appeal failed.Specifically, the Court held (1) the force clause in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A), which defines a crime of violence, encompassed Defendant’s 18 U.S.C. 2119 convictions for carjacking; (2) Defendant’s arguments that section 924(c) is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied, were without merit; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (4) the district court did not err in instructing the jury as to what the government had to prove to sustain Defendant’s convictions. View "United States v. Cruz-Rivera" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the convictions of Akeen Ocean and Jermaine Mitchell for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and Ocean’s sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment with three years of supervised release, holding that there was no merit in any of Appellants’ claims of error.Specifically, the Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to convict Ocean of the charged conspiracy; (2) the district court did not err in admitting recorded jailhouse conversations Ocean had with a girlfriend who cooperated with the government; (3) the sentencing judge did not err in calculating Ocean’s drug quantity; and (4) the district court did not err by allowing two law enforcement witnesses to testify that they believed a substance they seized was crack cocaine. View "United States v. Ocean" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to eighty-four months’ incarceration for possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, holding that the government did not breach its plea agreement with Defendant.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to charges of possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. After a hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to eighty-four months of imprisonment as to Count I and twelve months as to Count II, to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed, arguing that the government breached the plea agreement by tacitly arguing that the agreed-upon sixty-month sentence for his weapons charge was too low. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that where the government stated its recommendation on the weapons charge without any reservation, there was no breach. View "United States v. Irizarry-Rosario" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for bulk-cash smuggling and currency structuring, holding that no reversible error occurred during the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court’s admission into evidence of certain statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule was prejudicial; (2) the district judge did not err in instructing the jury; (3) Defendant waived his claim that the district judge erred by not granting his motion for acquittal on the structuring count; and (4) the prosecutor did not make prejudicial comments in closing arguments or at sentencing. View "United States v. Freitas" on Justia Law

At issue was whether a sentencing court may assess criminal history points for a prison sentence imposed following revocation of probation when the revocation-triggering conduct also constitutes the gravamen of the federal offense of conviction.In 2013, Defendant was convicted in a Puerto Rico court of aggravated illegal appropriation and illegal possession of a firearm. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive three-year terms of probation. In 2016, a federal grand jury charged Appellant with being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition. Appellant pleaded guilty. Before Appellant’s federal sentencing, a Puerto Rico court revoked Appellant’s terms of probation for the 2013 offenses and sentenced him instead to two consecutive three-year prison terms. The revocation was triggered by the same unlawful weapons possession that formed the basis of Appellant’s federal conviction. The district court factored the revocation sentence into Appellant’s criminal history score and proceeded to impose an upwardly variant sentence of forty-eight months’ imprisonment to be served consecutively to the revocation sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Rivera-Berrios" on Justia Law

After addressing how a district court should apply the Sentencing Commission’s revised commentary regarding mitigating role adjustments the First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence to eighty-seven months of imprisonment, holding that Defendant’s sentence was neither procedurally flawed nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant pled guilty to several drug-related offenses. After determining that Defendant was not entitled to a minor participant reduction, the district court imposed concurrent eighty-seven terms of confinement on all four counts of conviction. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in refusing to grant him a minor participant reduction. See U.S.S.G. 3B1.2. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s claim of legal error in the court’s application of section 3B1.2 was without merit, and the district court supportably found that Defendant was not entitled to the minor participant reduction; and (2) the challenged sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Arias-Mercedes" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, holding that there was no error in the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to Defendants on all of Plaintiff’s claims.Plaintiff’s lawsuit stemmed from the covert installment of screenshot-capturing software on Plaintiff’s work computer, which led to his arrest and plea of nolo contendere to one count of possession of child pornography. Plaintiff brought his claims against the individuals who participated in the events leading up to and following his arrest. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "Boudreau v. Lussier" on Justia Law

After addressing the proper standard for evaluating the enforceability of an appellate waiver the First Circuit dismissed Appellant’s appeal challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence, holding that Appellant’s waiver of appeal must be enforced.Appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to knowingly possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment within the plea agreement’s appellate waiver range. On appeal, Appellant argued that his plea agreement’s appellate waiver was unenforceable under the tripartite framework of United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14, (1st Cir. 2001), and that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The government urged the First Circuit to dismiss the appeal based on the plain-error analysis set forth in United States v. Borrero-Acevedo, 533 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2008). The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding (1) any inconsistency between Teeter and Borrero-Acevedo need not be reconciled in this case; and (2) even under the more defendant-friendly Teeter approach, Defendant’s waiver of appeal was enforceable. View "United States v. Villodas-Rosario" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions and the order of restitution imposed by the trial court but vacated the sentence of incarceration and remanded for resentencing, holding that the trial judge erred when it used the 2014 Guidelines Manual rather than the 2015 Guidelines manual at the time of sentencing and that the trial judge’s clear error affected Defendant’s substantial rights.The Court held (1) the government presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions for bankruptcy fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft; (2) the bankruptcy fraud theory the government argued in its closing did not constitute a constructive amendment to Defendant’s indictment nor a prejudicial variance; (3) the trial judge properly instructed the jury about bankruptcy fraud and aggravated identity theft; (4) the district judge used the incorrect version of the United States Sentencing Commission’s Guidelines Manual, which affected both the calculation of the applicable guidelines sentencing range and the ultimate imposition of the sentence of incarceration; and (5) the district court did not commit any errors when it ordered restitution to the clerk of court for the district court. View "United States v. Valdes-Ayala" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed in connection with Defendant’s plea of guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and one count of possession of a machine gun, holding that Defendant’s sixty-six-month sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.The district court imposed an above guideline sentence of sixty-six months imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently, and three years of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s sentence was procedurally reasonable; and (2) the sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Sosa-Gonzalez" on Justia Law