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

Defendants, who previously served as high-ranking officials in the Massachusetts Office of the Commissioner of Probation (OCP), were convicted for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) violations, RICO conspiracy, and mail fraud based on their roles in a hiring scheme at the OCP. The First Circuit reversed the convictions and ordered the entry of judgments of acquittal, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions because the Government failed to demonstrate the the conduct of these Massachusetts state officials satisfied the appropriate criminal statutes. Specifically, the Government overstepped its authority in using federal criminal statutes to police the hiring practices of Defendants. View "United States v. Tavares" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The district court sentenced Defendant to time served on the SORNA violation followed by five years of supervised release. The court also imposed several conditions of release. Defendant appealed, arguing that the special conditions were not reasonably related to his conviction, his history, or the goals of sentencing. Defendant further claimed that the conditions were overbroad and imposed a greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary. The Supreme Court held that the conditions were reasonable but remanded for further clarification consistent with this opinion. View "United States v. DaSilva" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony and possessing a machine gun. Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of sixty-five months. In Defendant’s prior appeal, the First Circuit vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. After Defendant’s sentencing hearing on remand, the district court imposed a variant sentence of sixty months' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant identified no basis for vacating the sentence, that the district court’s reasoning was sufficient to justify the variance, and that the variance was not imposed in error. View "United States v. Santa-Otero" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to production of child pornography. Defendant’s plea agreement contained a knowing and voluntary waiver of any right to appeal his sentence. Defendant appealed, challenging certain special conditions of supervised release imposed in connection with his guilty plea. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the majority of Defendant’s sentence, holding that, with respect to all but one of the challenged conditions, Defendant fell short of establishing that the enforcement of the appellate waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice; but (2) vacated the portion of the condition that authorized penile plethysmograph (PPG) testing, holding that enforcement of Defendant’s appellate waiver with respect to the PPG testing requirement would result in a miscarriage of justice. View "United States v. Berrios-Cruz" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Defendant filed a motion to suppress a pistol and ammunition found after a search conducted at his house, arguing that the affidavit submitted by a special agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms supporting an application for a warrant to search his residence was misleading. The district court denied the motion to suppress. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty, reserving his right to challenge the denial of his suppression motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, although certain aspects of the affidavit were troubling, the affidavit established probable cause by showing a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found at Defendant’s residence. View "United States v. Fleury" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiring to distribute narcotics near three public housing projects and possessing a firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking offense. Defendant was appointed new counsel for sentencing purposes after accusing his first lawyer of coercing him into accepting a plea agreement. The new counsel also represented a co-defendant in the drug trafficking conspiracy. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the assignment of new counsel resulted in a conflict of interest and that the district court erred in failing to hold a Foster hearing to addressed the alleged conflict. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, even if a Foster inquiry was required, the government sufficiently demonstrated that any prejudice to Defendant was improbable because there was no actual conflict of interest. View "United States v. Cardona-Vicenty" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court imposed an eighty-four-month prison term. Defendant appealed, challenging both his conviction and his sentence. The First Circuit (1) affirmed Defendant’s conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting over Defendant’s objection a portion of expert testimony concerning the absence of fingerprints on the gun that the jury found Defendant to have possessed; but (2) remanded for reconsideration of Defendant’s sentence and, specifically, reconsideration as to whether Defendant’s prior convictions for resisting arrest and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon qualify under the career offender guideline as convictions for crimes of violence. View "United States v. Tavares" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute, and possess with the intent to distribute, controlled substances. The presentence report attributed 1,451.7 kilograms of synthetic cannabinoid product to Defendant, an amount Defendant did not contest. At issue during the sentencing hearing was whether Defendant’s product was most similar to THC or marihuana. The district court ruled that THC was the appropriate comparator drug. Because one kilogram of THC is equivalent to 167 kilograms of marihuana under the Guidelines, the district court found that Defendant was responsible for 242,434 kilograms of marihuana. The district court ultimately imposed a sentence of 114 months. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence, holding (1) there was no plain error in the district court’s conclusion that THC was the proper comparator for the synthetic cannabinoids Defendant possessed; and (2) the district court correctly applied the 1:167 multiplier listed in the Guidelines and calculated the recommended sentence. View "United States v. Hurley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in a Massachusetts state court, Appellant was convicted of unarmed robbery. The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Appellant’s claim that certain identification procedures violated his constitutional rights. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to set aside his conviction, arguing that the trial court violated his due process rights by admitting certain identification evidence at his trial. The federal district court denied Appellant’s habeas petition, and the First Circuit granted a certificate of appealability. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s petition, holding that the Appeals Court did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent in rejecting Appellant’s claim that the pre-trial identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive. View "Moore v. Dickhaut" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of Hobbs Act extortion, tax fraud, and making false statements to obtain federal worker’s compensation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress incriminating statements she made during her interview with two sheriff’s deputies because the statements were obtained through a custodial interrogation without the benefit of a Miranda warning and that her confession was involuntary. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not subjected to a custodial interrogation, and therefore, it was not necessary to provide her with Miranda warnings; and (2) Defendant’s statements were voluntary. View "United States v. Swan" on Justia Law