Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In the 1990s, José A. Vega-Figueroa was involved in a drug-trafficking operation in Puerto Rico. He was charged in 1994 with multiple offenses, including first-degree murder, but was acquitted by a jury in 1995. In 1997, a federal grand jury indicted him for his role in a criminal enterprise involving the distribution of various drugs and related violent acts. After a thirty-day trial, he was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to multiple life sentences. Vega has since made several unsuccessful attempts to challenge his conviction and sentence.In February 2021, Vega filed a motion for compassionate release in the District of Puerto Rico, citing his health conditions and the risk of COVID-19 complications. He also argued that his rehabilitation efforts and the double jeopardy of being tried for the same conduct warranted his release. The district court denied his motion, finding that the Bureau of Prisons had taken adequate measures to protect inmates from COVID-19 and that Vega's health conditions did not meet the criteria for compassionate release. The court also determined that Vega remained a danger to the community, given his criminal history and prison infractions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Vega's health conditions and the measures taken by the Bureau of Prisons did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. The appellate court also upheld the district court's assessment that Vega continued to pose a danger to the community, thus justifying the denial of his motion for compassionate release. View "United States v. Vega-Figueroa" on Justia Law

José Luis Meléndez-Rivera and an associate committed a carjacking in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, during which Meléndez shot one of the victims in the face. Meléndez was arrested and charged with multiple offenses, including carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury and firearm-related charges. He initially pled not guilty but later negotiated a plea agreement with the government, agreeing to plead guilty to the carjacking charge in exchange for the dismissal of other charges.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico did not accept the initial plea agreement, prompting Meléndez to withdraw his plea. A new plea agreement was reached, recommending a 180-month sentence for the carjacking charge. At sentencing, the court considered the presentence investigation report (PSR), the plea agreement, and Meléndez's sentencing memorandum, which detailed his difficult upbringing and history of recidivism. The court ultimately imposed a 198-month sentence, citing Meléndez's extensive criminal history and the need for deterrence and punishment.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Meléndez argued that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to meaningfully advocate for the recommended 180-month sentence and that the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the court did not consider his mitigation arguments. The First Circuit found no plain error in the government's conduct, concluding that the prosecutor fulfilled her obligation by requesting the agreed-upon sentence. The court also held that the sentence was procedurally reasonable, as the district court had considered the relevant factors and Meléndez's mitigation arguments, even if it did not explicitly address each one. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Melendez-Rivera" on Justia Law

Lester Aceituno was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and two counts of aggravated identity theft. The fraudulent scheme involved using stolen identification information to open bank accounts, change addresses to rented mailboxes, deposit fraudulent checks, and withdraw funds using debit cards. Aceituno opened accounts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts using stolen identities and signed documents attesting to the accuracy of the information. He also created a mailbox using a stolen identity. The scheme was led by a man known as "Abby," who provided the stolen information.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied Aceituno's Rule 29 motion, which argued insufficient evidence to prove he knew he was using real persons' identifying information. The court also rejected his claim of prosecutorial misconduct during the government's closing argument and rebuttal. Aceituno was sentenced to 30 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that Aceituno knew the identification information belonged to real people. The evidence included Aceituno's repeated use of stolen identities, the bank's verification process, and testimony from a co-conspirator. The court also found that the prosecution's statements during closing arguments were fair inferences from the evidence and did not constitute misconduct. The court affirmed Aceituno's conviction. View "United States v. Aceituno" on Justia Law

Dana A. Pullman, a former Massachusetts State Police trooper and president of the State Police Association of Massachusetts (the Union), and Anne M. Lynch, head of the lobbying firm Lynch Associates, were involved in a kickback scheme. Pullman hired Lynch Associates to assist with a grievance negotiation, initially agreeing to a $200,000 fee. Later, Pullman verbally agreed to increase the fee to $350,000. After the Union received reimbursement from the Commonwealth, Pullman pressured the Union treasurer to issue a $250,000 check to Lynch Associates. Lynch then paid $20,000 to Pullman's wife. Both Pullman and Lynch were convicted of honest-services wire fraud, among other charges.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts convicted Pullman and Lynch of honest-services wire fraud, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and a racketeering conspiracy. Pullman and Lynch challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury instructions, particularly regarding the honest-services wire fraud convictions. They argued that the evidence did not support a quid pro quo arrangement and that the jury instructions improperly suggested Pullman owed a fiduciary duty to the Commonwealth.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found sufficient evidence to support the honest-services wire fraud convictions, noting the jury could reasonably infer a quid pro quo arrangement. The court also held that any instructional error regarding Pullman's fiduciary duty to the Commonwealth was harmless, as the evidence overwhelmingly showed he breached his fiduciary duty to the Union. The court reversed the wire fraud convictions and one of Lynch's tax fraud convictions based on the government's concession. The court affirmed the other convictions, including those for honest-services wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and the RICO conspiracy. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Pullman" on Justia Law

The case involves Jovan Vavic, a former head coach of the men's and women's water polo teams at the University of Southern California (USC), who was implicated in the "Varsity Blues" college admissions scandal. Vavic was accused of facilitating the admission of students as fake athletic recruits in exchange for payments from Rick Singer, a college consultant orchestrating the scheme. The payments were allegedly made to benefit Vavic's water polo program and his sons' private school tuition.In the lower court, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts presided over the case. A jury convicted Vavic on three counts: conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery, and wire fraud and honest services wire fraud. However, the district court granted Vavic a new trial, concluding that certain statements made by the government during its rebuttal closing amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. The court found that the government's statements misrepresented the law and facts, particularly regarding the payments to USC and the alleged $100,000 bribe for Agustina Huneeus's recruitment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's order for a new trial on the honest services fraud charge (Count Sixteen) due to a Yates error, as it was impossible to determine if the jury's verdict rested on an invalid legal theory following the decision in United States v. Abdelaziz. However, the appellate court reversed the new trial order for the federal programs bribery conspiracy charge (Count Three), concluding that the government's statements did not constitute plain error and that there was no prejudicial variance or Napue error. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "US v. Vavic" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Admilson Pires, was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor and sex trafficking of a minor. The case began when the Norwood Police Department received a tip about a missing sixteen-year-old girl, Daisy, who was found at an apartment in Norwood, Massachusetts. Daisy revealed that she had been engaging in commercial sex. During the investigation, it was discovered that Pires and another individual, Sandro Rosa (known as Eli), were involved in trafficking Daisy.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts conducted the trial, where Pires was found guilty on both counts. He was sentenced to 132 months' imprisonment for each count, to be served consecutively. Pires appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conspiracy conviction and that there were errors in the trial, including the admission of expert testimony and statements made by the prosecution during summation.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction, noting that Eli's involvement went beyond merely providing shelter and included actions that indicated a tacit agreement to traffic Daisy. The court also held that the expert testimony about typical patterns of sex trafficking was admissible and relevant to the case, and that the prosecutor's statements during summation did not amount to misconduct that would warrant a reversal of the conviction.The First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding Pires's convictions and sentences. View "U.S. v. Pires" on Justia Law

Bruce Anderson killed his estranged wife in 1983 and was convicted of first-degree murder by a Massachusetts jury in 1989, receiving a life sentence without parole. After an unsuccessful appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Anderson filed a federal habeas corpus petition in 1991, which was denied by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The First Circuit affirmed the denial, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in 1994.In 2019, Anderson filed a second habeas petition under section 2254, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by Attorney Stephen Hrones, who represented him at trial, on direct appeal, and during the first federal habeas proceedings. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice, citing it as a "second or successive habeas corpus application" that lacked authorization from the First Circuit. Anderson did not appeal this dismissal but instead sought authorization from the First Circuit, which was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed whether Anderson's second habeas petition was "a second or successive habeas corpus application" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). The court concluded that it was, emphasizing that pre-AEDPA practice and AEDPA's purposes support treating such petitions as successive. The court noted that Anderson's choice to retain the same counsel for his first habeas petition did not exempt his second petition from being considered successive. The court vacated the district court's denial of the petition and remanded it with instructions to dismiss. The court also affirmed the district court's decision that any Rule 60(b) motion by Anderson would be untimely. View "Anderson v. Divris" on Justia Law

Eliezer Rosario-Ramos and his brother were indicted for carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury and bank larceny after assaulting and robbing an elderly woman, Zulma Lebrón-Serrano. Rosario-Ramos pled guilty to the carjacking offense and proposed a fifteen-year sentence. The district court, citing the brutal nature of the attack and the victim's subsequent death, sentenced him to twenty-three years. Rosario-Ramos appealed, claiming procedural and substantive defects in his sentence.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico initially reviewed the case. Rosario-Ramos contested the Probation Office's recommendation of a twenty-five-year sentence, arguing against the application of the murder cross-reference. The district court declined to apply the murder cross-reference but found that the attack contributed to the victim's death, leading to a twenty-three-year sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no procedural error in the determination that the attack contributed to the victim's death. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward variance based on the brutal nature of the attack and the personal connection between Rosario-Ramos and the victim. The court found the sentence substantively reasonable despite being higher than the Guidelines range and the sentence proposed by both parties, noting the district court's thorough explanation of the aggravating factors. The court concluded that the district court's rationale was plausible and the sentencing outcome defensible. View "United States v. Rosario-Ramos" on Justia Law

Victor Soto-Sanchez was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated when a police officer testified about an informant's tip. He also challenged the application of a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice in his sentencing.The United States District Court for the District of Maine allowed the police officer's testimony, overruling Soto-Sanchez's objections on Confrontation Clause and hearsay grounds. The court provided a limiting instruction to the jury, stating that the informant's statements were not to be considered for their truth but to explain the officer's investigative steps. The jury found Soto-Sanchez guilty, and the court applied the obstruction of justice enhancement based on Soto-Sanchez's alleged attempts to influence a witness.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that Soto-Sanchez's Sixth Amendment rights were violated but deemed the error harmless due to overwhelming evidence against him, including physical evidence and witness testimony. The court also rejected Soto-Sanchez's sentencing challenge, concluding that he had waived his arguments regarding the obstruction of justice enhancement. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed Soto-Sanchez's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Soto-Sanchez" on Justia Law

Anthony Basilici was convicted by a jury of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute heroin, commit kidnapping, and obstruct justice. He was also convicted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, which was discharged, resulting in an enhanced sentence. Basilici appealed his firearm conviction, arguing trial errors and insufficient evidence.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts heard the case initially. The jury found Basilici guilty on all counts, including the firearm charge under Count Five. Basilici filed motions for acquittal and a new trial, which the district court denied, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Basilici contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his firearm conviction under the Pinkerton doctrine, which holds conspirators liable for reasonably foreseeable crimes committed by co-conspirators. He also argued that the jury instructions were misleading and confusing, and that the supplemental instruction given in response to a jury question was improper.The First Circuit affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the firearm discharge was reasonably foreseeable to Basilici. The court held that the district court did not err in giving the Pinkerton instruction and that the supplemental instruction was appropriate. The court also found no plain error in the district court's handling of the jury's note and the supplemental instruction. View "United States v. Basilici" on Justia Law