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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the prosecutor impermissibly commented on the court interpreter’s translation of certain testimony given by police officers, and (2) the prosecutor invited the jury to infer guilt from Defendant’s silence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) even assuming that there was an error in the prosecutor’s remarks as to the interpretation of witness testimony, the error was not so prejudicial as to warrant relief; and (2) the prosecutor did not impermissibly comment on Defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent. View "United States v. Baez-Martinez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of drug conspiracy and two counts of murder. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in (1) denying Defendant’s motion to suppress wiretap evidence; (2) denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his car and farm pursuant to a search warrant; (3) failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to investigate allegations of juror bias and by failing to grant a new trial on account of that alleged bias; (4) denying Defendant’s motions challenging the Government’s decision to seek the death penalty; and (5) denying Defendant’s motion for acquittal or new trial on the basis of insufficient evidence to convict. Lastly, the evidence presented at trial regarding the duration of the drug conspiracy did not constitute a fatal variance from that charged in the indictment, and any possible error in the district court’s evidentiary rulings was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "United States v. Burgos-Montes" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Junior H. De La Cruz-Feliciano and Sandri Rigo were convicted of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine and aiding and abetting the same. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s questioning of a witness did not evince judicial bias in violation of De La Cruz’s right to due process; (2) the Government’s belated disclosure of errors in an investigative report prior to Rijo’s counsel’s opening statement did not prevent defense counsel from using it in preparing and presenting Rijo’s case; (3) the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Rijo’s prior bad acts; and (4) the Government’s closing argument accurately described Rijo’s role in the offense. View "United States v. De La Cruz-Feliciano" on Justia Law

Appellant submitted at least ten fraudulent claims to his insurers for lost, stolen, or damaged produce and sought reimbursement. In sum, the ten claims totaled over $490,000, yet Appellant received payments totaling only $178,568. Appellant later pleaded guilty to a single count of wire fraud. The PSI Report recommended boosting Appellant’s offense level by 14 levels based on an intended loss of approximately $480,000. The PSI report also recommended a restitution award of $178,568. Appellant objected to the recommendations, arguing that the loss figure should exclude legitimate losses embedded in the fraudulent claims. The district court overruled Appellant’s objections, concluding that where, as here, insurance policies contain void-for-fraud clauses, intended loss is equal to the aggregate face value of the claims submitted. The court then sentenced Appellant to an incarcerative term of twelve months and ordered payment of restitution in the amount of $178,568. The First Circuit vacated Appellant’s sentence, including the restitution order, and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court erred in (1) calculating the amount of intended loss attributable to the fraud and, thus, in fashioning the guideline enhancement; and (2) ordering restitution in the full amount paid to Appellant simply because the insurance policies included void-for-fraud clauses. View "United States v. Alphas" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine and more than 280 grams of crack. Defendant did not admit that he was responsible for a particular quantity of either form of drug. During the sentencing hearing, the district court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant was personally responsible for 765.5 grams of crack. The court imposed a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence. While Defendant’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court handed down Alleyne v. United States, which held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees that such qualifying fact issues are subject to jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the court’s judicial fact-finding of drug quantities in this case was impermissible; but (2) the error was harmless in light of concessions made by Defendant’s counsel and overwhelming evidence that Defendant was responsible for at least 280 grams of crack. View "United States v. Morris" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in knowing possession of a firearm. The district court imposed a sentence of 100 months’ imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not commit prejudicial error in counting more than one of Defendant’s prior convictions for Puerto Rico criminal offenses as a conviction for a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines; and (2) did not err in applying an enhancement under the Guidelines due to the existence of an obliterated serial number on the frame of the firearm Defendant was convicted of possessing, even when the serial number on the slide was unaltered. View "United States v. Serrano-Mercado" on Justia Law

Before Defendant was under suspicion on federal child pornography charges, the Puerto Rico police carried out two searches that resulted in the seizure of various electronic devices. After the Puerto Rico police had informed federal authorities about images they had found on the devices, federal agents approached Defendant’s then-wife, who consented to the federal agents’ examination of the family’s desktop computer. A federal grand jury subsequently indicted Defendant for numerous child pornography counts. Defendant pleaded guilty and then appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his suppression motion. The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court, holding (1) the two searches carried out by the Puerto Rico police violated the Fourth Amendment; and (2) because the district court did not address whether those unlawful searches tainted the evidence federal authorities acquired pursuant to the consent of Defendant’s then-wife, the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue. View "United States v. Cordero-Rosario" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin and distribution of heroin. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the district court (1) did not violate the Confrontation Clause by allowing into evidence testimony from an FBI agent that relayed the agent’s own observations and not statements made out of court by someone Defendant could not confront at trial; (2) did not deprive Defendant of his constitutional right to present a defense by denying his request to call a particular witness; and (3) did not err in its factual determinations under the Sentencing Guidelines or impose a term of imprisonment that was substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Occhiuto" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud. The district court sentenced Defendant to a fifty-one-month term of imprisonment, at the top of Defendant’s Guidelines imprisonment range. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence, holding that the district court (1) properly calculated the victim’s loss attributable to Defendant for sentencing purposes; (2) correctly calculated the total offense level and Guidelines sentencing range; (3) did not commit clear error by concluding that Defendant lacked remorse for his commission of the offense; and (4) imposed a sentence within the applicable Guidelines sentencing range that was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Maisonet-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography and violating supervised release. The district court imposed consecutive 150- and 24-month sentences and a life term of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Defendant’s prior child pornography conviction; (2) the district court did not err in admitting evidence of the terms of Defendant’s supervised release; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence from the search of his apartment; (4) the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant of the charged offense; and (5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to a mid-range prison term. View "United States v. Majeroni" on Justia Law