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

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence showing that Defendant was carrying heroin with the intent to distribute it, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence found during the underlying traffic stop.Defendant was stopped for unsafe operation of a vehicle. The stop resulted in more than an hour of questioning and in Defendant relinquishing thirty-seven grams of heroin that he was carrying on his person. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the traffic stop was illegal and that the ensuing questioning violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, after which Defendant pleaded guilty. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no error in the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Fagan" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, holding that the district court did not err.Defendant was charged with two counts related to his possession of a gun and other items suggestive of drug trafficking and pled guilty to one of the counts. Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his plea, claiming that he was legally and factually innocent and that the government's evidence did not support his conviction. The district court denied the motion and proceeded to sentence Defendant to seventy-two months' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "United States v. Garcia-Nunez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress the seizure of his cell phone and its refusal to suppress evidence of child pornography, holding that the warrant authorizing the search of Defendant's electronic devices containing the child-pornography evidence was unsupported by probable cause.On appeal, Defendant argued that the police exceeded the scope of the first warrant by seizing his phone from his wife and that the application for the second warrant did not contain sufficient detail such that a neutral magistrate could determine whether there was probable cause that the alleged objects of the search were pornographic. The First Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings, holding (1) there was no violation of Defendant's constitutional rights in the seizure of his phone under the first warrant; (2) fatal deficiencies in the second affidavit supporting the second warrant resulted in the second search warrant being issued without the required showing of probable cause; and (3) the good-faith exception did not apply, requiring suppression of the evidence. View "United States v. Sheehan" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for attempting to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, holding that Defendant's first three challenges on appeal were unavailing and that his final argument was waived.Specifically, the First Circuit (1) did not err by declining to order the government to provide use immunity to a defense witness; (2) the district court did not err or undermine Defendant's entrapment defense in its evidentiary rulings; (3) the district court did not err in refusing to apply safety valve relief at sentencing after finding that Defendant failed to meet the safety valve's complete and truthful disclosure requirement; and (4) Defendant's remaining argument on appeal was waived. View "United States v. Munera-Gomez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court applying the so-called "turnover" statute, 18 U.S.C. 3664(n), in this case regarding the disposition of the funds held in Appellant's inmate trust account, holding that no additional fact-finding was required and that the turnover order was within the ambit of the district court's discretion.Appellant was convicted of distributing child pornography. As part of Appellant's sentence, the district court ordered him to make $18,000 in restitution to the victims of his crimes. During Appellant's incarceration the government learned that his inmate trust account reflected a balance of $10,956 and successfully moved for an order authorizing the Bureau of Prisons to to "turnover" Appellant's funds to be used as payment towards his outstanding restitution obligation. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the turnover order was valid and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the order. View "United States v. Saemisch" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming Petitioner's order of removal and denying his application for adjustment of status, holding that a conviction under Mass. Gen. Laws (MGL) ch. 269, 11C is not categorically a firearm offense, as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(c).Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, pleaded guilty in Massachusetts state court to defacing or receiving a firearm with a defaced serial number in violation of MGL ch. 269, 11C. The Department of Homeland Security later initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner charging him with removal based solely on his Massachusetts state court conviction. Petitioner moved to terminate the proceedings on the grounds that his Massachusetts conviction did not qualify as a removable firearm offense. The immigration judge sustained the removability charge and denied Petitioner's ensuing application to adjust his status. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the BIA's opinion and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that MGL ch. 269, 11C was facially overbroad when compared to its federal counterpart. View "Portillo v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity and sentencing him to thirty years' imprisonment, holding that there was no error in the underlying sentence.Defendant pled guilty to participating in two fraud schemes - business email compromise and online romance. Defendant pled guilty to his convictions. The district court applied two enhancements to Defendant's sentence - one for the unauthorized use of a means of identification unlawfully to produce another means of identification and another for the substantial financial hardship caused to one victim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in applying the sentencing enhancements. View "United States v. Iwuanyanwu" on Justia Law

In this case where Defendant was convicted of both cyberstalking and making interstate threats the First Circuit affirmed, as modified, the judgment of the district court ordering Defendant to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $72,112.62, holding that modification was required.Earlier, the First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence but left open the issue of restitution. The district court subsequently entered an amended judgment ordering Defendant to pay restitution. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) it was not clear or obvious error for the district court to rely on certain billing statements to support a restitution order; (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his arguments that the causal nexus for the restitution order was missing in this case; and (3) it was plain error for the district court to impose a restitution award that was "slightly higher" than the amount supported by the evidence, and therefore, the award must be modified to support a total of $68,041.19 in restitution. View "United States v. Cardozo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court finding Defendant voluntarily absent and applying an obstruction of justice sentencing enhancement, holding that the district court did not err.Defendant's probation officer requested and was granted a warrant for Defendant's arrest for knowingly and intentionally possessing with the intent to distribute illegal drugs. Defendant, however, was at-large when the district court judge scheduled the sentencing hearing. The sentencing hearing was held in absentia under Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(c)(1)(B) over defense counsel's objection, and the district court imposed a thirty-month sentence. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence on appeal, holding that the district court (1) did not err in holding the sentencing hearing in absentia and finding Defendant voluntarily absent; and (2) did not err in imposing the obstruction of justice enhancement based on an objection to the willfulness finding. View "United States v. Rivera-Nazario" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's request for immediate release and reducing his sentence from 240 to 180 months, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.In 2021, after the First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, Defendant filed a motion for a reduction of his prison sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582 (c)(1)(A), as revised by the First Step Act, which went into effect approximately six months after Defendant was sentenced and created a new regime in which prisoners could seek compassionate release. The district court ultimately granted Defendant's request for a sentence reduction but not immediate release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not run afoul of this Court's guidance in evaluating Defendant's compassionate release motion. View "United States v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law