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

Defendant pleaded guilty to a drug trafficking offense and was sentenced to seventy-two months imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that his counsel provided ineffective assistance and that his case should be remanded for resentencing because of a recent retroactive amendment to the sentencing guidelines. While Defendant’s appeal was pending, the district court purported to grant sua sponte an order, issued on April 29, 2015, modifying Defendant’s sentence on the basis of the amendment to the guidelines. The First Circuit (1) dismissed Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim without prejudice because the claim involved fact-specific issues ill-suited for resolution on direct appeal; and (2) treated the district court’s April 29, 2015 order as if it were an indicative ruling under Fed. R. App. P. 12.1 and remanded the case to the district court so that it may enter an order modifying Defendant’s sentence as it indicated it believed was warranted. View "United States v. Cardoza" on Justia Law

In 2007, Petitioner was convicted in a Massachusetts state court of living off or sharing the earnings of a minor prostitute. In 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 in federal court seeking to invalidate his conviction on a number of grounds. The district court found against Petitioner on every claim and ordered the petition dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s habeas petition, holding (1) Petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim failed on the prejudice prong of the Strickland v. Washington standard; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; and (3) Petitioner’s final claim was waived. View "Logan v. Gelb" on Justia Law

Defendants, who each managed Chinese restaurants in Maine where undocumented immigrants were employed, pled guilty to conspiracy to harbor and aiding and abetting the harboring of illegal aliens for commercial advantage and private financial gain, conspiracy to launder money, and conspiracy to file false employer’s quarterly tax returns to the IRS. At sentencing, the district court ordered Defendants to pay restitution to the IRS. Defendants appealed, arguing that the district court erred in ordering restitution because the United States is not a “victim” for purposes of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act. The First Circuit affirmed the restitution orders imposed by the district court, holding that the United States is a “victim” within the meaning of the Act and that a restitution award may not be offset by the value of property forfeited to the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. 982. View "United States v. Zhang" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. After he was sentenced, Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by inadequately explaining its reasons for choosing a 135-month sentence rather than the 120-month mandatory minimum. While Appellant’s appeal was pending, the sentencing guidelines were amended so as to lower the sentencing range for most drug offenses. The amendment was made retroactive. As a result, Appellant moved to have the district court modify his sentence. While the appeal was still pending, the district court issued an order purporting to reduce Appellant’s sentence to the 120-month minimum in consequence of the amendment. However, the district court did not issue an indicative ruling in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 12.1. The First Circuit (1) held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order reducing the sentence because Appellant’s appeal was pending at the time the district court ruled on Appellant’s motion to modify the sentence; and (2) treated the district court’s order as though it were an indicative ruling under Rule 12.1. The Court then remanded to the district court to enter an order modifying Defendant’s sentence as the amendment to the sentencing guidelines warranted. View "United States v. Maldonado-Rios" on Justia Law

In 2011, Defendants were convicted of, among other closely related charges, federal program bribery under 18 U.S.C. 666. The First Circuit vacated the convictions, holding that the jury had received improper instructions about what constituted “bribery” under the statute. The Court remanded for possible re-prosecution of the section 666 counts under that same indictment. Defendants filed two motions for acquittal on the section 666 charges, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the renewed prosecutions because (1) the jury acquitted on the related offenses in the earlier trial and necessarily found that the government failed to prove issues that it would have to relitigate in the new prosecutions, and (2) a line order that the district court issued and then corrected immediately after the First Circuit issued its mandate in the last appeal constituted a final and irrevocable order of acquittal on the renewed section 666 charges. The district court denied the two acquittal motions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendants failed to meet their burden of showing that the acquittals involving section 666 collaterally estopped the renewed, standalone section 666 prosecutions; and (2) the district court’s line order did not constitute an acquittal under the Double Jeopardy Clause, and thus double jeopardy did not prevent the district court from reconsidering it. View "United States v. Bravo-Fernandez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Defendant to sixty months’ imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the government improperly introduced into evidence as substantive evidence of Defendant’s guilt the stipulated facts from the plea agreement of another individual in the incident that gave rise to Defendant’s conviction, but the error was harmless; (2) the prosecutor made an improper statement during the government’s rebuttal, but it was not sufficiently prejudicial as to constitute plain error; and (3) Defendant’s remaining claims did not warrant relief. View "United States v. Torres-Colon" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of interstate stalking with the intent to harm or kill his estranged wife and her boyfriend. Defendant was sentenced to 100 months’ imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Defendant’s earlier domestic abuse of his wife; (2) the district court did not improperly truncate Defendant’s trial proceedings; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; and (4) the sentence was reasonable in view of the facts of this case. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of cocaine trafficking. During sentencing, the district court followed neither the recommendation in the pre-sentence report nor the recommendation in the plea agreement on the grounds that those recommendations did not reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, protect the public from further crimes by Defendant, or address the issues of deterrence and punishment. The court varied upwards from the Guidelines range and imposed a forty-eight month sentence. The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding that the sentencing rationale failed adequately to explain the basis for the large variance from the Guidelines range. Remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Ortiz-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant in this case was a Medicare-approved provider of durable medical equipment. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four counts of health-care fraud. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not commit error in its evidentiary rulings challenged by Defendant; (2) a rational jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knowingly and willfully conspired to commit health-care fraud; and (3) the district court did not err in calculating loss in constructing Defendant’s guideline sentencing range. View "United States v. Iwuala" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of tampering with a federal witness, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and related crimes. Because the acts for which Appellant was convicted resulted in the death of the witness, Appellant faced the death penalty. The jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court violated Appellant’s immunity agreement with the government when it insisted that, before a defense expert would be permitted to testify, the defense expert be informed a proffer made in an attempt to negotiate a plea despite the proffer being protected by direct-use immunity. View "United States v. Jimenez-Bencevi" on Justia Law