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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of receipt and possession of child pornography. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the child pornography statutes under which Defendant was charged were not unconstitutionally vague; (2) the district court properly rejected Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury regarding one count of the indictment; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring the testimony of Defendant’s proposed expert witness and in instructing the jury; and (4) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Silva" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 115 months imprisonment. Defendant sought to vacate his guilty plea because the district court failed to meet the requirement of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(3)(B) of warning Defendant that he could not withdraw his plea if the court did not follow the parties’ sentencing recommendations. The plea agreement, however, did contain this warning. The First Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) Defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for the district court’s failure to administer the missing warning, he would not have entered the plea; and (2) the sentence the district court imposed was procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Hernandez-Maldonado" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of interference with commerce by threats or violence. In sentencing Defendant, the district court imposed an above-the-range sentence of 168 months in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred when it pronounced a sentence of 168 months “without adequately explaining the sentence or complying with [U.S.S.G.] 4A1.3(a)(4).” The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the upwardly variant sentence imposed on Defendant (1) was procedurally sound, as the district court did not intend to or in fact apply an upward departure under U.S.S.G. 4A1.3(a)(1); and (2) was substantively reasonable, as the sentence was rooted in the circumstances of the offense and Defendant’s characteristics. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of knowingly possessing one or more matters which contained visual depictions of one or more minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction because, contrary to Defendant’s assertions, the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the people in the images and videos were actual children and that Defendant’s possession of any child pornography was knowing; and (2) the district court did not err in providing a willful blindness jury instruction, in declining to give Defendant’s proposed affirmative defense instruction, and in declining to give Defendant’s proffered inconsistent mental state instruction. View "United States v. Figueroa-Lugo" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The parties jointly agreed to recommend a sentence of eighty-four months’ imprisonment. The district court proceeded to impose a ninety-month term of immurement to run consecutively to any other sentence then being served. Defendant appealed, arguing that the sentence lacked adequate explanation and that it was substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding (1) no clear or obvious “lack of explanation” error occurred in this case; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Vargas-Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant, a youth with no prior record, was convicted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Defendant’s convictions were largely based on two written confessions. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the confessions as involuntary, asserting that the confessions were the result of officers threatening his mother with deportation and his siblings with being put into state custody. The First Circuit vacated the judgment of conviction, holding that the district court erroneously excluded from consideration critical evidence of coercion on hearsay grounds, and therefore, the Court could not conclude that the confessions were voluntary. Remanded for a new suppression hearing. View "United States v. Feliz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Jose Lopez-Diaz, a medical doctor, was convicted of health-care fraud, conspiracy to commit health-care fraud, and aggravated identity theft for using personal information gathered from the patients of his brother, Carlos Lopez-Diaz, a dentist, to bill Medicare for services to Carlos’s patients that Jose never provided. Carlos was also convicted of conspiracy and aggravated identity theft for giving Jose access to his patient billing information while knowing that Jose never treated any of the patients. The First Circuit affirmed Jose’s convictions but vacated Carlos’s convictions, holding that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to support Carlos’s convictions without undue speculation. Remanded for a judgment of acquittal of Carlos on all counts. View "United States v. Lopez-Diaz" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with, inter alia, five counts of unlawful production of child pornography. Defendant entered into a non-binding plea agreement obligating the government to recommend an aggregate sentence of thirty-five years’ imprisonment. The presentence investigation report indicated a guideline sentence of life imprisonment. After a disposition hearing, the court imposed an aggregate fifty-year term of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the aggregate sentence imposed in this case was consistent with the guideline sentence of life imprisonment and fell within the wide range of reasonable sentencing outcomes. View "United States v. Ruiz-Huertas" on Justia Law

Appellant was indicted on one count of sexual exploitation of children and one count of transporting child pornography. The district court denied Appellant’s request for a Franks hearing, as well as Appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of Appellant’s bedroom. Appellant pleaded guilty, specifically reserving his right to appeal the district court’s rulings. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in denying Appellant’s request for a Franks hearing where Appellant failed to make a preliminary showing that certain omitted information from an FBI agent’s affidavit would have negated the magistrate judge’s probable cause finding; and (2) did not err in concluding that the warrant was sufficiently particular and in thus denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the warrant. View "United States v. McLellan" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with possessing an unregistered shotgun with a barrel measuring less than eighteen inches. Appellant moved to suppress the sawed-off shotgun and his statements about it, arguing that his relinquishment of the sawed-off shotgun to police officers was coerced and that his subsequent admissions were fruit of the poisonous tree. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress where the officers were lawfully in Appellant’s home by virtue of his voluntary consent and, once they had served the orders there, they were entitled to seize firearms, such as the sawed-off shotgun, that were in plain sight. View "United States v. Gamache" on Justia Law