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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's prison sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to crimes arising from his role in a bank fraud scheme and vacated in part the restitution order, holding that the district court should not have included a certain auto loan in the restitution order.Defendant pleaded guilty to three crimes stemming from his involvement in a bank fraud conspiracy. The district court sentenced Defendant to 110 months' imprisonment and also ordered restitution in the amount of $256,537, an amount that included the auto loan at issue. The First Circuit vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) Defendant's prison sentence was procedurally reasonable; and (2) the district court erred by including the auto loan at issue in its restitution order, but the remainder of the restitution order was proper. View "United States v. Gadson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition for habeas review on the grounds that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, holding that, although this Court's reasoning differs from that of the district court, there was no error in the denial of the habeas petition.Petitioner pled guilty to transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. On appeal, Petitioner argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance based on a claim centered on the applicable statute of limitations, which had changed from the time when Petitioner committed the offense of conviction to the time that he was indicted. The district court denied relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to move to dismiss the charges against him on limitations grounds. View "Miller v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying the petition.After Petitioner pleaded guilty to seven counts of being a felon in possession of ammunition and/or firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), which held that to convict a defendant of violating section 922(g) the government must prove that the defendant knew that he or she had a relevant prohibited statute when committing the underlying offense. Thereafter, Petitioner brought this petition arguing that he would have proceeded to trial had he been told of the mens rea requirement. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to carry his burden of establishing that it was reasonably probable that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the Rehaif error in this case. View "Guardado v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to twenty-four months above the mandatory minimum of sixty months in an 18 U.S.C. 924(c) count arising from a carjacking, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant entered into a plea agreement with the government in which he pled guilty to two carjackings and the offense of using and carrying a firearm in relation to the carjacking. The parties recommended a sentence of 123 months' imprisonment. The district court sentenced Defendant to a total of 162 months. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's procedural reasonableness claim failed; and (2) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Santiago-Lozada" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the two district court rulings at issue in this case, one granting Defendant compassionate release from incarceration and the other denying the government's ensuing request for reconsideration, holding that there was no error.In 2020, Defendant motioned the court for compassionate release under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that his heightened health risks associated with the COVID-19 virus constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason to release him from prison. The district court granted the motion. The government moved to reconsider, arguing that because Defendant had been vaccinated, the release was not warranted. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) this Court had jurisdiction over the government's compassionate release appeal; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion or err in its compassionate release decision; and (3) there was no error in the court's conclusion that Defendant's release was appropriate in light of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment against him on double jeopardy grounds after the district court declared a mistrial based on complications brought about by the pandemic, holding that that there was no error.Defendant was charged with transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce. During trial, the government's main witness and a case agent took a test that came back positive for COVID-19. The court ultimately ordered a mistrial and dismissed the jurors. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the steps taken by the district court leading to its declaration of a mistrial were within its discretion. View "United States v. Dennison" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to a downwardly variant sentence of twenty-four months' imprisonment in connection with her plea of guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute illegal drugs, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erroneously ruled against her on her factual disputes and erred in attributing to her a cache of fentanyl found in the home of her boyfriend. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the judge necessarily resolved the factual disputes at issue against Defendant; and (2) any error as to the attribution of the drugs found in Defendant's boyfriend's home was harmless. View "United States v. Ford" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the convictions of the three appellants in this case - Jose R. Andino-Morales (Andino), Jose J. Folch-Colon (Folch), and Anibal Miranda-Montanez (Miranda), holding that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellants'' convictions and that the challenges brought by individual appellants were unavailing.Appellants were convicted were convicted of conspiring to participate in La Asociacion NETA, an organization whose members allegedly trafficked contraband and carried out murders-for-hire throughout Puerto Rican prisons, through a pattern of racketeering activity (RICO), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d). In addition, Folch and Miranda were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and of committing a violent crime in aid of racketeering. The First Circuit affirmed across the board, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; (2) there was no error in the district court's jury instructions; (3) Folch was not entitled to relief on his argument that his RICO conspiracy conviction must be vacated due to an allegedly improper statement by the prosecutor during closing argument; (4) Andino's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable. View "United States v. Andino-Morales" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of fifteen counts of an indictment charging sexual exploitation of children and distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography and his sentence of 480 months' incarceration, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions on each of the child exploitation counts; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement on the grounds that Defendant was not in custody at the time of his interrogation; and (3) Defendant's challenges to the district court's calculation of his Guidelines sentencing range were without merit. View "United States v. Monson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of drugs and entering judgment on Defendant's plea of guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Defendant was pulled over by a New Hampshire police officer, Stephen DiChiara, following a suspected drug buy. DiChiara was asked to conduct the stop by a United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) task force officer, DiChiara stoped and seized the car Defendant was driving. A subsequent search of the car revealed uncovered roughly one kilogram of cocaine. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of the drugs, arguing that DiChiara could not act solely on the DEA officer's probable cause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the directive given to DiChiara was sufficient to attribute the DEA officer's probable cause to DiChiara. View "United States v. Balser" on Justia Law