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

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. In keeping with the plea agreement, both parties recommended that the district court impose a low-end Guidelines sentence of thirty months. The district court, however, sentenced Defendant to an upwardly variant sixty-month term of imprisonment. Defendant moved for reconsideration. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in imposing his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant’s upwardly variant sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Pedroza-Orengo" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. In keeping with the plea agreement, both parties recommended that the district court impose a low-end Guidelines sentence of thirty months. The district court, however, sentenced Defendant to an upwardly variant sixty-month term of imprisonment. Defendant moved for reconsideration. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in imposing his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant’s upwardly variant sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Pedroza-Orengo" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to carjacking and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. The district court imposed a total sentence of 360 months’ imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived his right to bring his claim asking the Court to vacate his guilty plea to Count I of the indictment because the indictment omitted an element of the crime for which he was charged; (2) Defendant’s argument that his guilty plea should be vacated based on the district court’s alleged violations of various Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 requirements at his plea colloquy failed either because there was no error at all or because Defendant could not show prejudice; and (3) Defendant’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Urbina-Robles" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances within 1,000 feet of property comprising a school, public housing project, and/or playground. The district court sentenced Defendant to 300 months’ imprisonment. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss or withdraw his guilty plea based on his earlier retained defense counsel’s purported conflict of interest. Defendant then filed a nunc pro tunc motion to set aside judgment, annul all proceedings, and dismiss the indictments based on post-judgment arguments. Both motions were denied. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the district court’s rejection of Defendant’s claim concerning his former counsel’s purported conflict of interest, holding that the district court properly concluded that there was no conflict and that Defendant was not prejudiced by his former counsel’s representation; and (2) dismissed Defendant’s appeal that stemmed from the rejection of his post-judgment claims, as they were not properly before the district court. View "United States v. Martinez-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant, a police officer with the Puerto Rico Police Department, pleaded guilty to making a false declaration to a federal grand jury. In the plea agreement, the parties jointly calculated a guideline sentence range of forty-six to fifty-seven months. The district court sentenced Defendant to forty-six months of imprisonment, thus denying Defendant’s request for a downward variance. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of a downward variance. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court’s failure to grant a downward variance did not render Defendant’s sentence substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Caraballo" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in federal district court, Defendant was convicted of sex trafficking and transporting minors to engage in prostitution. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s argument that the indictment was defective based on its failure to allege facts to support the aiding and abetting charges failed because Defendant could not show plain error and because any error would be harmless; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence from the victim’s cell phone; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for production of classified Department of Children and Families records that would purportedly show that the victim had previously offered men sex in exchange for a place to stay; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that Defendant had prostituted and physically abused another woman; (5) the government did not commit misconduct in its closing argument by impermissibly commenting on Defendant’s failure to take the stand; and (6) the district court did not commit plain error in instructing the jury regarding the knowledge requirement of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a). View "United States v. Gemma" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a police officer, during the course of a Terry stop, conducted a pat-frisk of a fanny pack that Defendant was wearing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the facts were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Defendant was armed and dangerous, and therefore, the law enforcement officer was justified in touching the fanny pack. View "United States v. Cardona-Vicente" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a police officer, during the course of a Terry stop, conducted a pat-frisk of a fanny pack that Defendant was wearing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the facts were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Defendant was armed and dangerous, and therefore, the law enforcement officer was justified in touching the fanny pack. View "United States v. Cardona-Vicente" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of conspiring to smuggle narcotics into the United States. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 claiming that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to advise him of his right to testify on his own behalf. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. After such a hearing, the district court again rejected the section 2255 petition. The First Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate Petitioner’s conviction and sentence, holding that the district court erred by not granting Petitioner’s section 2255 petition, as Petitioner received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel at his criminal trial, and he was prejudiced as a result. View "Casiano-Jimenez v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two conspiracies - conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances within 1,000 feet of public housing and conspiracy to import controlled substances from the Dominican Republic. Defendant was sentenced to 288 months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute various controlled substances, concurrent with a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment for the importation conspiracy. Defendant appealed, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and that the district judge was required to recuse himself. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant received constitutionally effective assistance of counsel; and (2) the district court did not err when he denied Defendant’s motion to recuse. View "United States v. Torres-Estrada" on Justia Law