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

After a joint trial, Defendants - Ramon Lanza-Vazquez (Lanza), Luis R. Nieves-Canales (Nieves), and Rafael Galan-Olavarria (Galan) - were convicted and sentenced for their participation in a drug distribution conspiracy. The First Circuit affirmed Defendants’ convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court did not err in ruling that no Franks violation occurred leading to a warrant obtained for the search of Galan’s residence; (2) the judge’s interventions and comments during trial were not improper; (3) there was no plain error in the judge’s charge to the jury; (4) Nieves’ arguments respecting the sufficiency of the evidence against him were without merit; and (5) even assuming that Alleyne v. United States applied in this case, no error occurred in the district court’s sentencing of Nieves. View "United States v. Lanza-Vazquez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendants Jose Laureano-Salgado, Pedro Ramirez-Rivera, and Ismael Cruz-Ramos were convicted of multiple drug and gun offenses. Defendants were all sentenced to life in prison. The First Circuit (1) vacated Cruz-Ramos’s conviction and sentence and remanded his case for a new trial, holding that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the fruits of a police search of his home and car and that including the erroneously admitted evidence at trial was not harmless; and (2) affirmed Laureano-Salgado’s and Ramirez-Rivera’s convictions and sentences, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions, that there was no merit to Defendants’ claims regarding jury selection, that the district court’s evidentiary rulings made during the trial did not amount to reversible error, that the jury was properly instructed, and that there was no sentencing error. View "United States v. Ramirez-Rivera" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted carjacking resulting in death, aiding and abetting the same, and use of a firearm resulting in death. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment and imposed restitution in the amount of $13,332. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) any error, if it occurred, in admitting evidence suggesting that Defendant used marijuana and Percocet in celebrating after the attempted carjacking, was harmless; (2) the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s mid-trial request for a continuance; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s request for a curative instruction on a witness’s improper comment at the time it was requested, and instead giving the instruction as part of the jury charge; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in preventing Defendant from questioning a witness about uncharged criminal activity; and (5) the district court did not commit plain err in awarding $13,332 in restitution to the victim’s family. View "United States v. Amador-Huggins" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendants, former police agents of the Puerto Rico Police, were convicted of conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate persons in the town of Arecibo in the exercise of their constitutional rights (Count 1) and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances (Count 2). Defendants appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions on Count 2 and claiming that the district court erred in denying their respective motions for acquittal. The First Circuit (1) reversed Defendant Norma Santos-Soto’s conviction on Count 2, holding that the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that she intended that the underlying substantive offense be committed; but (2) affirmed Defendant Carlos Plaza-Santiago’s conviction on Count 2, holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction as to that count. View "United States v. Santos-Soto" on Justia Law

Appellant was serving a state sentence in a Massachusetts state facility when the federal government indicted him in the District of Rhode Island with a number of gun and drug offenses. The government brought Appellant to Rhode Island to face those charges but returned him to Massachusetts while the federal charges were still pending. The federal government subsequently moved to dismiss the federal case without prejudice in light of the anti-shuttling section of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), a provision that required the United States to complete all proceedings against Appellant before sending him back to Massachusetts. One year later, the United States re-indicted Appellant on the same gun and drug charges. Appellant unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the indictment and was convicted on a federal felon in possession of a firearm charge. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) any IAD violation in the first federal case was addressed by the district court’s proper decision to dismiss the matter without prejudice; and (2) the second case was handled without error. View "United States v. Gouse" on Justia Law

Appellants, Angel Paz-Alvarez (Paz) and Luis Marrero-Marrero (Marrero), were convicted for their participation in a drug trafficking conspiracy. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the jury was properly instructed as to the mens era required for conspiracy; (2) the district court did not fail to charge the jury with the reasonable doubt standard on an element that increased the mandatory minimum or maximum sentences; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Paz’s convictions; (4) the district court did not err by applying a two-level sentence enhancement to Paz’s sentence for using a “special skill”; (5) the conspiracy statutes are not unconstitutional as applied to Marrero; (6) the admission of hearsay evidence did not give rise to a prejudicial variance; and (7) Marrero’s cumulative error argument was waived. View "United States v. Paz-Alvarez" on Justia Law

Petitioner brought this habeas corpus petition after he was released from federal custody, arguing that the Bureau of Prisons violated his right to due process when it failed to hold an in-person hearing before revoking his good-time credits, thus causing him to over-serve his prison sentence. The district court concluded that although Petitioner had over-served his sentence, no due process violation occurred. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there were no facts that Petitioner could assert or constitutional claim that he could muster that would entitle him to the specific remedy he now requests, and therefore, Petitioner failed to present a petition upon which relief could be granted. View "Francis v. Maloney" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Defendant to serve forty-eight months in prison followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence was substantively unreasonable and that a condition of supervised release requiring him to maintain a “clean" telephone line in his home, sans modem, failed to make clear that he was not prohibited from accessing the internet. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that the sentence was not outside the wide universe of permissible sentences, but remanded for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to clarify the language of the challenged supervised release condition to make clear that there was no prohibition on Defendant’s access to the internet. View "United States v. Diaz-Arroyo" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), Defendant faced a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years if he had three previous convictions for a “violent felony” or a “serious drug offense.” The district court concluded that Defendant had three prior convictions qualifying as ACCA predicates and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that two convictions identified by the district court did not qualify as ACCA predicate offenses. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s prior conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance under N.Y. Penal Law 220.39(1) qualifies as a “serious drug offense” under the ACCA; and (2) Defendant’s prior conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, 15B(b) qualifies as a “violent felony.” View "United States v. Whindleton" on Justia Law

Defendants - Juan Laureano-Perez, Jeffrey Cummings-Avila (Cummings), and Christopher Laureano-Perez (Christopher) - were convicted of various narcotics possession, conspiracy, and firearm charges arising out of their participation in an illicit drug organization. Each defendant appealed his conviction, and Cummings and Christopher challenged their sentences. The First Circuit affirmed all of the convictions and Cummings’s sentence but vacated Christopher’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) all of Defendants’ claims of error during the pretrial and trial phases of their proceedings were without merit except for one, and as to that allegation, any error was harmless; (2) Cummings’s sentence was procedurally sound; and (3) the district court erred in failing to calculate the applicable guidelines sentencing range for one of the two counts for which Christopher was convicted, instead choosing to group the two counts together. View "United States v. Laureano-Perez" on Justia Law