Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the convictions of Angel Gabriel Fernandez-Jorge, Brian Perez-Torres, Jose A. De La Cruz-Vazquez, Edwin Otero-Díaz, Isaias Mendoza-Ortega, Edwin Otero-Marquez, and Rafael Martinez-Trinidad stemming from a shootout that took place in front of a public housing project in Humacao, Puerto Rico.The Court held (1) sufficient evidence supported Defendants’ convictions for possession of a firearm in a school one; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support Fernandez-Jorge’s conviction for possession of a firearm in a school zone; (3) the district court erred in instructing the jury on aiding and abetting liability, which required Defendant’s convictions for possession of a firearm in a school zone to be vacated; and (4) there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions of Mendoza-Ortega and Otero-Marquez for possession of a firearm as convicted felons. View "United States v. Fernandez-Jorge" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentenced imposed after Defendant pleaded guilty to both producing and possessing child pornography, holding that Defendant’s claims of error failed.After Defendant pleaded guilty, the district court sentenced him to 264 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by ten years of supervised release. Defendant appealed, seeking resentencing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the imposition of the supervised release condition restricting Defendant’s possession and use of internet-capable electronics was not clearly or obvious error; (2) Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable; and (3) the contention made in Defendant’s sealed brief was without merit. View "United States v. Aquino-Florenciani" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction for importation of controlled substances, possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy, holding that by entering an unconditional guilty plea, Defendant forfeited his claim that the district erred in denying his motion to suppress.Defendant pleaded guilty unconditionally after the start of trial. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain incriminating statements. The First Circuit held that by pleading guilty at trial, Defendant waived his right to challenge the denial of a motion to suppress filed on the eve of trial. View "United States v. Tineo-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

In this appeal brought by a criminal defendant challenging the length of his terms of imprisonment and supervised release and several of the supervised release conditions, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal with the one exception of Defendant’s objection to one of his supervised release conditions, which the Court vacated and directed the district court to reconsider on remand.Pursuant to a plea deal, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of 108 months’ imprisonment and sentenced him to a 144-month term of supervised release with multiple conditions. On appeal, Defendant argued that his appeal waiver was not made knowingly and voluntarily or, in the alternative, that enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. After dismissing most of Defendant’s claims on appeal, the First Circuit vacated the condition that, by its terms, prevented Defendant from having any contact with his minor children without approval of a probation officer, holding that because no justification was given for imposing the condition and the condition implicated Defendant’s fundamental constitutional interest in his relationship with his children, the condition must be vacated. View "United States v. Cabrera-Rivera" on Justia Law

The district court did not err in imposing a 218-month sentence on Defendant for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing heroin, holding that the sentence was not procedurally unreasonable.On appeal, Defendant challenged the drug quantity that the district court attributed to him. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, contrary to Defendant’s argument on appeal, certain witness statements concerning Defendant’s heroin distribution, as out-of-court statements, were not inherently less reliable for sentencing purposes. Rather, the district court’s reliance on the witness statements and its adoption of a narrowly tailored drug quantity determination supported by that evidence were reasonable. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, holding that Defendant’s argument that the conviction was invalid owing to the district court’s acceptance of Defendant’s guilty plea despite the court’s failure to satisfy Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 failed.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the facts on record are at least arguably sufficient to satisfy the requirement of demonstrating on the record a factual basis for the “in furtherance” element as required under Rule 11; and (2) the court addressed Defendant with enough care to determine that he understood the nature of the “in furtherance” charge to which he was pleading guilty. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Negron" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the 120-month sentence Defendant received after pleading guilty to being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not err by classifying Defendant’s prior conviction for attempted murder under Puerto Rico law as an enumerated “crime of violence” that triggers an increase in his base offense level pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines; (2) the district court’s upward variance from Defendant’s advisory sentencing range under the guidelines was procedurally sound, and Defendant’s remaining procedural challenges failed; and (3) Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Benitez-Beltran" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Virgilio Diaz-Jimenez’s (Diaz) conviction and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding that the search of Diaz’s home was unconstitutional, and the error was prejudicial.Diaz and Hector Serrano-Acevedo (Serrano) were convicted of armed bank robbery and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. On appeal, Diaz argued that the government’s warrantless search of his home violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence uncovered during the search. Serrano argued that certain statements made during trial were impermissible hearsay. The First Circuit vacated Diaz’s conviction and affirmed Serrano’s conviction, holding (1) the district court erred by denying Diaz’s motion to suppress, and the error was not harmless; and (2) if there was any error in the admission of the statements challenged by Serrano, it was harmless. View "United States v. Serrano-Acevedo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sixty-month sentence Defendant received following the revocation of his supervised release, holding that his sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.In 2010, Defendant completed a prison sentence for possession a gun and ammo in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime and began a five-year term of supervised release. After Defendant violated the terms of his release and was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court sentenced Defendant to sixty months in prison. The First Circuit affirmed the sixty-month revocation sentence, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally unsound or substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Tanco-Pizarro" on Justia Law

On the facts of the case, the constitutional speedy trial clock began to run from the date of the original indictment rather than from the date of an additional charge first brought in a superseding indictment.A federal grand jury indicted Defendant on twelve counts of wire fraud. Approximately six years later, the government filed a superseding indictment containing the same twelve wire-fraud counts as the original indictment and adding a new count for bank fraud. The district court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the original indictment and the added bank-fraud count on Sixth Amendment speedy trial grounds. The government appealed, arguing that, with respect to the bank-fraud charge, the district court should have measured the period of delay from the filing of the superseding indictment, not from the filing of the initial indictment. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that the bringing of an additional charge does not reset the Sixth Amendment speedy trial clock to the date of the superseding indictment where the additional charge and the charge for which the defendant was previously accused are based on the same act or transaction, or common scheme or plan, and where the government could have, with diligence, brought the additional charge at the time of the prior accusation. View "United States v. Handa" on Justia Law