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

In 2004, a jury convicted Appellant of felony murder, intentional obstruction of commerce by robbery, and unlawfully carrying and using a firearm during a crime of violence. On his third appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that the trial judge mistakenly ordered restitution. The First Circuit vacated and remanded the restitution portion of Appellant’s sentence and affirmed his conviction, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence presented at Appellant’s jury trial to sustain his robbery conviction; (2) Appellant’s sentence was not procedurally unreasonable; (3) the district judge did not err at sentencing by ordering Appellant’s sentences to be served consecutively instead of concurrently; and (4) the district court improperly imposed $60,000 in restitution, as the judge mistakenly “continued” his restitution order, even though he had never ordered restitution in the first place. View "United States v. Garcia-Ortiz" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty, in separate plea agreements, to unlawfully possessing a machine gun and aiding and abetting another individual in the unlawful possession of automatic firearms. The guidelines ranges for each of Defendant’s offenses was 33-41 months and 41-51 months, respectively. The district court imposed a higher sentence of 60 months for each offense and decided that the sentences would run consecutively for a total sentence of 120 months in prison. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the prosecution did not breach the plea agreements; and (2) the sentence imposed by the district court was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Quinones-Melendez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to fraud. The district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months imprisonment and granted eighteen months credit for time served. The applicable Guidelines Sentencing Range (GSR) was seventy to eighty-seven months of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, alleging that the district court erred in imposing a sentence above the applicable GSR. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentence, holding that the district court’s imposition of a 120-month sentence was neither procedurally flawed nor substantively unreasonable where the court considered all sentencing factors, adequately explained its sentence and deviation from the GSR, and imposed a reasonable sentence in the totality of the circumstances. View "United States v. Arroyo-Maldonado" on Justia Law

On two consecutive days in March 2012, Defendant engaged in a total of six acts of violence, all at gunpoint. Defendant was charged with numerous Puerto Rico offenses and, under federal law, being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant was sentenced to a total of twelve years for the state crimes. Defendant pleaded guilty to the federal charge and was sentenced to an eighty-seven-month term of imprisonment to run consecutively to his previously imposed commonwealth sentence. Defendant appealed, claiming that the district court committed procedural error by ignoring a provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines requiring concurrent sentencing for the federal and state offenses. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentencing judgment, holding that the sentenced imposed was proper. View "United States v. Figueroa-Figueroa" on Justia Law

After a three-month jury trial, the five defendants in this case were convicted as members of an extended drug conspiracy. When voir dire was conducted in this case, Defendants’ family members and friends were excluded from the courtroom purportedly based on the Puerto Rico court’s “longstanding district policy” of not allowing the public into the courtroom during voir dire. Defendants appealed, arguing that they were denied their right to a public trial when their family members were excluded from the courtroom during voir dire. The First Circuit vacated Defendants’ convictions, holding that the complete exclusion of the public from jury selection was a structural error that infringed on Defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights. Remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Negron-Sostre" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted in two separate indictments for drug trafficking crimes. The cases were consolidated, and Defendant pled guilty to count one in both indictments pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court sentenced Defendant to 293 months’ imprisonment for count one in each of the two cases, with the terms to be served concurrently. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the government did not breach the terms of the plea agreement due to the prosecutor’s remarks relating to Defendant’s possession of firearms during the time period alleged in the second indictment; and (2) the district court did not err in imposing a two-level firearm enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. View "United States v. Miranda-Martinez" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of a felony requiring his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed an order that Petitioner be removed. Petitioner petitioned for review, arguing that because Padilla v. Kentucky described deportation as a “penalty,” his removal violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment or related constitutional protections unless a court conducted an individual assessment to determine whether his order of removal was a proportional punishment relative to his underlying criminal conviction. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Padilla has not signaled a break from long-settled law that removal operates simply as “a refusal by the government to harbor persons whom it does not want,” not as a punishment within the meaning of the Constitution intended to acutely sanction a noncitizen for his underlying criminal conviction. View "Hinds v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States. The district court sentenced Defendant to fifty-seven months of imprisonment. Specifically, the district court (1) determined that the applicable statutory maximum imprisonment sentence was twenty years under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b) because Defendant had illegally reentered the U.S. subsequent to deportation after a conviction for an aggravated felony, and (2) enhanced Defendant’s Guidelines sentencing range upon determining that Defendant had been previously deported or unlawfully remained in the U.S. after a conviction for a felony that is a crime of violence. Defendant appealed, arguing that because the indictment failed to claim that he was convicted of an aggravated felony prior to being deported, section 1326(b)(2) was inapplicable, and his sentence greater than the two-year maximum allowed under section 1326(a) violated his constitutional rights. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant’s argument was foreclosed by binding Supreme Court precedent. View "United States v. Jimenez-Banegas" on Justia Law

Defendant and his two co-defendants pleaded not guilty to attempted carjacking and the use of a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant subsequently entered into a plea agreement with the government pursuant to which Defendant agreed to plead guilty to a substitute information charging him with the firearms offense in exchange for a dismissal of the two-count indictment. After a hearing, the magistrate judge issued a written report and recommendation that the district court accept the plea. After defense counsel learned that the government had dropped the charges against one of Defendant’s co-defendants and before the court had accepted Defendant’s guilty plea, Defendant filed a plea withdrawal motion. The district court denied the plea withdrawal motion and subsequently accepted the guilty plea. The First Circuit vacated the judgment below and remanded with directions to grant Defendant’s plea-withdrawal motion, holding that the district court erred by failing to grant Defendant’s plea withdrawal motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(1). View "United States v. Davila-Ruiz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of securities fraud, mail fraud, conspiracy to conceal assets and make fraudulent transfers, concealment of assets, fraudulent transfer, uttering coins, and money laundering. The offenses arose from Defendant’s fraudulent schemes used to cheat numerous victims out of more than a million dollars and to manipulate the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to shield his ill-gotten gains from creditors. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s guilty verdict; and (2) the district court properly calculated the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed a procedurally and substantively reasonable sentence. View "United States v. Pacheco-Martinez" on Justia Law