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

In 2009, Defendant was indicted on one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute and two specific-offense counts of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The indictment did not specify the precise drug amounts involved, but under then-prevailing law, five grams was all that was needed to trigger a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. Defendant eventually pled guilty to all three counts. Between the indictment and the plea, Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), which elevated the quantity of crack cocaine required to impose a mandatory minimum sentence to twenty-eight grams. Prior to sentencing, Defendant challenged the applicability of the statutory mandatory minimum, arguing that attributing twenty-eight grams or more of crack cocaine to him would entail the use of a fact not charged in the indictment. Relying on Harris v. United States, the court invoked the statutory mandatory minimum and sentenced Defendant to concurrent ten-year terms of immurement. After Defendant appealed, the United States Supreme Court decided Alleyne v. United States and overruled Harris. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that while an Alleyne error occurred in this case, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "United States v. McIvery" on Justia Law

In 2002, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 168 months imprisonment. In 2012, while he was serving his 2002 sentence, Defendant pleaded guilty to a separate charge of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin. Defendant was sentenced as a career offender to 120 months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to the 168-month term he was already serving. In 2014, Defendant filed a pro se motion for reduction of his sentence. Defendant’s motion was based on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, which retroactively reduced by two levels the base offense level for many drug offenses. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant was ineligible for relief under the amendments because he had already served the entirety of his otherwise eligible sentence. View "United States v. Vaughn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting a bank robbery and conspiring to commit a bank robbery. At sentencing, the district court applied a weapon enhancement and an obstruction of justice enhancement and sentenced Defendant to a term of incarceration of 140 months. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, as the government provided sufficient evidence to enable the jury to find Defendant guilty of the charged offenses; and (2) did not err in applying the weapon enhancement and obstruction of justice enhancement. View "United States v. Lasseque" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess and distribute illegal drugs near a public housing facility and of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district judge imposed a prison sentence of 210 months, a sentence in the middle of the range contemplated by the plea agreement. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that he must be re-sentenced because the government broke the plea agreement or because of alleged defects in the acceptance of Defendant’s plea. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding (1) on plain error review, Defendant failed to establish that he was not in accord with his plea agreement; (2) there was no cause to consider whether the agreement should be set aside; and (3) therefore, the waiver of appeal Defendant signed was enforceable, and the First Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s appeal. View "United States v. Oppenheimer-Torres" on Justia Law

The government filed a juvenile information against Y.C.T. alleging two acts of delinquency. The government filed a motion for a discretionary transfer of Y.C.T. to the district court’s criminal jurisdiction. A magistrate judge issued a written report recommending that Y.C.T. be transferred to adult status for criminal prosecution. The district court adopted the recommendation after conducting a de novo review, concluding that the transfer best served the interest of justice. The First Circuit affirmed the transfer order, holding that the district court’s reliance on the record, as developed by the magistrate judge, to conduct its de novo review was not an abuse of discretion and did not violate Y.C.T.’s right to due process. View "United States v. Y.C.T." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to nine counts of producing child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography. The district court accepted the plea. Ten days before the scheduled sentencing hearing, Defendant filed a motion requesting leave to withdraw his guilty plea. The motion was denied without a hearing. Defendant later moved for reconsideration, but the district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, asking the First Circuit to remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on his reconsideration motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a further evidentiary hearing beyond what was done at sentencing; and (2) any technical error regarding the potential length of sentence that Defendant faced was neither plain nor prejudicial. View "United States v. Santiago-Rivera" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a straight guilty plea to illegal possession of firearms after having been previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than one year and illegal possession of firearms that he knew or had reasonable cause to believe were stolen. The district court sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 216 and 120 months. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court’s calculation of the applicable sentencing ranges under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in deciding to count two prior convictions as “crimes of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines so as to raise Defendant's base offense level; (2) the district court did not err by denying Defendant credit for acceptance of responsibility under the Sentencing Guidelines; (3) the district court did not err in applying the two-point enhancement for causing reckless endangerment during flight; and (4) none of Defendant’s pro se supplemental claims merit relief. View "United States v. MacArthur" on Justia Law

After a second trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Defendant was sentenced to 196 months of incarceration. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) it was not plain error for the district court to admit an unexecuted draft contract into evidence; (2) the district judge did not err by commenting on the draft contract; (3) there was no violation of the Jones Act, and Defendant suffered no prejudice in the admission of English testimony peppered with Spanish colloquialisms; (4) the prosecutor’s closing and rebuttal arguments did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct; and (5) Defendant’s sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Carela" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of distribution of a controlled substance (crack cocaine). Based on the inadvertent admission of evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to serve 120 months in prison. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that it was highly probable that the submission of the inadmissible evidence did not influence the verdict and was therefore harmless. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

After two separate jury trials, Defendant was convicted of one count of possession of child pornography and one count of false declaration before the court. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) with regard to the possession charge, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress and did not err by permitting the government to play two thirty-second video excerpts of child pornography for the jury during its closing; and (2) with regard to the perjury matter, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Dudley" on Justia Law