Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
United States v. Robles-Pabon
The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district sentencing Defendant to twenty-one months of imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana and seventy-two months of imprisonment for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, to be served consecutively, and remanded this matter for resentencing.Defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes pursuant to a plea agreement that endorsed a decrease by two levels for acceptance of responsibility and ignored the possibility of a three-level reduction under the governing guideline. The district court approved a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and imposed the sentences set forth above. The First Circuit vacated the sentences, holding that Defendant’s counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to detect the possibility of an extra level decrease and that Defendant deserved the extra level decrease and resentencing. View "United States v. Robles-Pabon" on Justia Law
United States v. Laureano-Perez
The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence following his guilty plea to a two-count indictment charging him with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and unlawful possession of a machine gun.The district court sentenced Defendant to sixty months in prison on each count, to be served concurrently. The sentence directed periodic drug testing of Defendant during his subsequent supervised release. On appeal, Defendant objected to the sixty-month sentences. The First Circuit held (1) although the district court considered community considerations, the judge did not ignore Defendant’s individual circumstances, nor did he fail to explain why an upward variance was warranted; and (2) the drug testing requirement was reasonably related to the legitimate objectives of supervised release. View "United States v. Laureano-Perez" on Justia Law
United States v. Rivera-Hernandez
The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court in this criminal case, holding that the sentence imposed upon Defendant in connection with his plea of guilty to transporting child pornography was without error.Pursuant to the parties’ plea agreement, the government recommended a sentence at the lower end of the applicable range at sentencing. The district court calculated the guideline sentence at a new range of 121-151 months and then sentenced Defendant to 121 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the range but higher than any sentence support by both parties. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) even if the district court did not explicate on the record its consideration of every argument Defendant presented in his sentencing memorandum, those arguments were unmistakably considered and rejected elsewhere in the court’s reasoning; and (2) as for Defendant’s attack on the guideline invoked by the district court, the First Circuit has, in settled precedent, upheld a district court’s discretion to follow it or not. View "United States v. Rivera-Hernandez" on Justia Law
United States v. Melendez-Gonzalez
The First Circuit affirmed Defendants’ convictions for wire fraud, embezzlement of public money, and conspiracy, holding that there was no merit in any of Defendants’ claims of error.Defendants, members of the United States Army National Guard in Puerto Rico, were convicted for carrying out a fraudulent scheme to obtain recruitment bonuses. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment as untimely; (2) the court’s rulings as to military dress in the courtroom were not an abuse of discretion; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (4) Defendants’ evidentiary challenges failed; and (5) one of the Defendant’s challenge to his sentence was unavailing. View "United States v. Melendez-Gonzalez" on Justia Law
United States v. Lawson
The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s fifteen-year term of supervised release imposed in connection with Defendant’s guilty plea to violating the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.On appeal, Defendant argued that under United States v. Medina, 779 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2015), the recommended term under the guidelines was a five-year term of supervised release for his offense. The First Circuit held that the guideline is merely a recommendation and that the judge is free to vary upward or downward, but the judge is expected to explain why a variance was imposed in any particular case. Therefore, this case must be remanded for the district court to decide what term to impose and, if over five years, to explain the upward variance. View "United States v. Lawson" on Justia Law
United States v. Akanni
The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s conviction for marriage fraud in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1325(c), which prohibits knowingly entering into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence presented in this case amply supported the district court’s conclusion that Defendant duped his wife into marrying him in order to avoid deportation; and (2) the trier of fact could reasonably have concluded that Defendant harbored no intent to establish a life with his wife and instead married her solely to avoid deportation. View "United States v. Akanni" on Justia Law
United States v. Flores-Carter
The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence of eighty-four months in prison, followed by five years of supervised release, imposed in connection with Defendant’s straight guilty plea to conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute.On appeal, the First Circuit held (1) at sentencing, the government did not mislead the district court as to one of Defendant’s co-defendants who had pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement; (2) the quantity of cocaine attributable to Defendant was amply supported and unflawed by material error; and (3) Defendant’s argument that district court refused to consider the grand jury testimony cited in Defendant’s sentencing memorandum failed because the district court did consider the information. View "United States v. Flores-Carter" on Justia Law
United States v. Lopez
Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of his prior convictions to serve as Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) predicates failed because no intervening law alters the validity of the First Circuit’s prior decisions concerning ACCA predicate offenses.Appellant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute heroin. Because Appellant had previously been convicted of at least three qualifying ACCA predicate offenses the Probation Office for the district of Massachusetts determined that he was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years in prison under the ACCA. The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s sentence, holding that the district court did not err in relying on Appellant’s previous drug convictions in applying the ACCA sentencing enhancement and properly subjected Appellant to the fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence. View "United States v. Lopez" on Justia Law
United States v. Belanger
The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and an unspecified amount of oxycodone and using and maintaining a drug-involved premises and Defendant’s sentence of eleven years’ imprisonment.The Court held (1) even if the district court erred in allowing “interpretative testimony” of various wiretapped calls, the admission did not affect Defendant’s substantial rights; (2) the Government presented sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction; (3) the district court did not err in refusing to give Defendant’s proposed “multiple-conspiracy” jury instruction; (4) the Government’s closing statement characterizing the law regarding withdrawal was far from model, but there was no error when the judge gave what was arguably a curative instruction; and (5) even if the district court erred in calculating Defendant’s sentence, any error would be harmless. View "United States v. Belanger" on Justia Law
United States v. Tirado
The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions of drug offenses and failure to appear for arraignment, holding that, contrary to Defendant’s argument on appeal, Defendant’s counsel did not suffer from a conflict of interest arising from violation of attorney-client privilege and a local rule of professional conduct.The Court held that, under the rules set forth in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348 (1980), and United States v. Soldevila-Lopez, 17 F.3d 480, 486 (1st Cir. 1994), Defendant failed to show an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected his lawyer’s performance. Further, “any tension in the lawyer’s mind between client loyalty and professional self-preservation” would have been addressed by a stipulation joined by Defendant, and the following colloquy demonstrated that Defendant understood his rights and the consequences of proceeding as he chose to do. View "United States v. Tirado" on Justia Law