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

Defendant pleaded guilty to bank robbery. After a sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to 180 months’ imprisonment, a downwardly variant sentence. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court’s determination that he did not accept responsibility for his offense and thus was not entitled to an offense-level reduction under the United States Sentencing Guidelines section 3E1.1. The First Circuit affirmed after reviewing the sentencing court’s determinations for clear error, holding that the district court did not commit any error, much less clear error, in denying Defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. View "United States v. D'Angelo" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a machine gun. After a sentencing hearing, the district court imposed an above-guideline seventy-two-month imprisonment term, a higher range than was recommended by either the presentence investigation report or the plea agreement. The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing before a different judge, holding that, under plain error review, the district court’s failure to calculate correctly the guideline sentencing range or to explain its calculation compromised the fairness and integrity of the proceeding. View "United States v. Marchena-Silvestre" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a). Appellant was sentenced to 300 months of imprisonment. Appellant subsequently appealed the district court’s denial of three motions to suppress and also challenged his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) Appellant’s three motions to suppress were correctly denied; (2) the district court did not err in applying two sentencing enhancements, and any error in the application of the third enhancement was harmless; and (3) Appellant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Hinkley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in state court, Appellant was convicted of the second-degree murder of his grandmother. Appellant was sentenced to life in prison. Appellant's conviction became final in 1985. Appellant subsequently made numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain relief from his conviction. In 2001, Defendant filed the federal habeas petition now before the First Circuit, claiming actual innocence. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely, given the one-year limitations period that the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) establishes for filing federal habeas petitions that challenge state convictions. The First Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the district court erred in evaluating whether Appellant’s mental illness warranted equitably tolling the limitations period. On remand, the district court developed the record, considered Appellant’s arguments, and again dismissed the habeas petition as untimely. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to meet his burden of establishing that his mental illness entitled him to equitable tolling of the AEDPA’s limitations period. View "Riva v. Ficco" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant was convicted of one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. At the sentencing hearing, the district court adopted the recommendation of the presentence report, which was based on a different guidelines calculation than that in the plea agreement, and imposed a sixty-month term of imprisonment. Defendant’s primary argument on appeal was that the district court erred by relying on disputed facts in the presentence report to calculate the advisory sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in relying on the presentence report’s facts, as Defendant did not say anything to challenge the substance of the factual allegations contained in the report; and (2) the district court’s factual determinations were not clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Cirilo" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances. The district court imposed a sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment, an upward variance from the applicable recommended Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months. Appellant challenged the variance on appeal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in determining Appellant’s sentence and adequately explained the rationale behind the variance; and (2) Appellant’s contention that the district court erroneously inflated his sentence in an effort to counteract what the court perceives as lax sentencing in the local Puerto Rico court system was without merit. View "United States v. Villanueva-Lorenzo" on Justia Law

Appellant was one of 110 defendants charged in a two-count indictment with drug and firearms offenses arising from a drug ring operating in Bayamon, Puerto Rico. Appellant, along with most of the other high-level members of the conspiracy, pled guilty pursuant to plea agreements. Appellant received the stiffest sentence on Count One, the drug count, of 360 months, while the sentences of Appellant’s co-defendants ranged from 78 months to 324 months. Appellant appealed, seeking resentencing on Count One. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded, holding (1) the rationale offered by the district court for the substantial disparity between Appellant’s sentence and the sentences of Appellant’s co-defendants was unsupported by the record; and (2) resentencing was also necessary for Appellant’s violation of his conditions of supervised release. View "United States v. Reyes-Santiago" on Justia Law

In 2006, Appellants - Paul A. DeCologero, Paul J. DeCologero, and John P. DeCologero, Jr. - were convicted of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and related crimes. In 2011, all three appellants filed motions under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate their convictions, arguing that the government violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights under Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence before trial. The district court denied the motions, concluding that the prosecution team was not aware of the reports before trial and that, even if the prosecution team had been aware of the reports, the reports were not material for Brady purposes. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that the reports were not material. View "DeCologero v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2011, Petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, bank fraud, and identity fraud. The federal district court ordered Petitioner to pay restitution and to serve a term of probation but did not impose any incarcerative sentence. As a result of this conviction, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner. An Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision. At issue before the First Circuit was whether an individual must serve a “term of imprisonment” to have committed an “aggravated felony” as that term is defined in section 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43). the First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that a federal or state conviction may constitute an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43) even when it is not accompanied by a term of imprisonment. View "Levesque v. Holder" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The district court imposed a 220-month term of imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony about drugs and drug paraphernalia found in Defendant’s bedroom; (2) did not err in admitting evidence of Defendant’s nearly ten-year-old robbery conviction for impeachment purposes; (3) did not err in admitting opinion testimony that drug dealers typically keep firearms to protect themselves and their drugs as lay opinion evidence; (4) did not violate Defendant’s right of confrontation or his due process rights by denying his request for disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant; and (5) did not err when it applied the ACCA in calculating Defendant’s sentence. View "United States v. Moon" on Justia Law