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

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court refusing to extend safety valve relief to Defendant after finding that Defendant possessed a firearm during and in connection with a drug-trafficking crime, holding that there was no error in the challenged finding and Defendant's ensuing sentence.In determining that Defendant failed to satisfy his burden of satisfying five statutory requirements for safety valve relief by a preponderance of the evidence the district court found that Appellant had possessed a firearm when he sold drugs to a confidential informant and that Appellant's possession of the firearm was in connection with that drug sale. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding Defendant ineligible for safety valve relief. View "United States v. Fitzpatrick" on Justia Law

In this appeal arising from the prosecution of alleged misconduct related to college admissions the First Circuit affirmed John Wilson's conviction for filing a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) and vacated Gamal Abdelaziz's and Wilson's other convictions, holding that several errors required vacatur.Among other things, the government alleged in charging Defendants that Defendants conspired with other parents to commit "honest services" fraud and property fraud, two types of mail and wire fraud. Defendants were convicted on all counts. The First Circuit vacated in part, holding (1) Defendants were not entitled to a judgment of acquittal on the basis that payments to accounts controlled by the alleged victim of a bribery scheme cannot violate 18 U.S.C. 666; (2) the "honest services" theory is invalid as a matter of law under Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010); (3) the district court erred in instructing the jury that admissions slots constitute property; and (4) the government failed to prove that Defendants agreed to join an overarching conspiracy charged in the indictment and that this variance prejudiced Defendants. View "United States v. Abdelaziz" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Petitioner's petition for habeas corpus on the grounds that it was time-barred, holding that there was no error.In May 1974, Petitioner was convicted of two counts each of unnatural and lascivious acts and unarmed robbery. In November of that same year and then again in 2002 Petitioner was convicted of other rape, kidnapping, and robbery charges. Based on the 2002 convictions along with the May and November 1972 convictions, Petitioner was convicted of being a habitual criminal and sentenced to life in prison. In 2020, Petitioner filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging a claim of actual innocence. The district court dismissed the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner's petition was untimely and Petitioner did not qualify for any exception to the the limitation periods set out in 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1). View "McCants v. Alves" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence of reimprisonment imposed upon the fourth revocation of Appellant's supervised release but vacated the subsequent term of supervised release to follow, holding that the district court erred in imposing additional supervised release.Appellant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). After he was initially released from prison, Appellant violated the terms his supervised release, and his supervised release was revoked. Thereafter, Appellant three times more violated the terms of his supervised release. In the latest revocation, the district court imposed the statutory maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment, followed by one additional year of supervised release. The First Circuit vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) Appellant did not preserve any argument regarding the district court's sentence of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3); and (2) the district court erred under 18 U.S.C. 3583(h) by imposing additional supervision. View "United States v. Ruiz-Valle" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to forty-five years of imprisonment in connection with his plea of guilty to one count each of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor and committing a felony involving a minor while required to register as a sex offender, holding that there was no error.The district court's sentence was composed of a thirty-five-year mandatory minimum on the attempted sexual exploitation of a minor count based on two prior state convictions relating to "the sexual exploitation of children" and a ten-year consecutive mandatory minimum on the remaining count. On appeal, Defendant argued that the thirty-five-year mandatory minimum did not apply because the phrase "relating to the sexual exploitation of children" means only the production of child pornography. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the plain text of "relating to the sexual exploitation of children" unambiguously refers to any criminal sexual conduct involving children; and (2) Defendant's remaining arguments failed. View "United States v. Winczuk" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence.Defendant was a passenger in a single-vehicle car accident on the Maine Turnpike. Suspicion that the vehicle and/or its occupants were transporting drugs Maine police officers searched Defendant's bag and discovered narcotics. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the evidence was obtain in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, after which Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's arguments for suppression failed. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for possession of firearms by a felon and his thirty-month sentence, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant challenged the procedural reasonableness of his sentence, asserting that the district court relied upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact regarding his use of a firearm on a previous occasion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the sentencing court did not clearly err in its factual findings and in crediting the account of a witness of the incident at issue over Defendant's own account. View "United States v. Lilly" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal did not meet the exacting plain error standard.Defendant pleaded guilty to using a firearm during a carjacking, a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court imposed a sentence of 108 months in prison, twenty-four months longer that the Guidelines recommendation, and a special condition upon his release requiring him to receive psychotherapy services. On appeal, Defendant argued for the first time that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable and that the sentencing judge erred by delegating to the probation department the authority to have the final say about when his mandated therapy was completed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his argument that faulty fact-finding made his upwardly variant sentence procedurally unreasonable; and (2) Defendant did not show any plain error on the part of the district court in imposing the therapy condition. View "United States v. Morales-Cortijo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's challenge to his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, holding that Appellant did not meet his burden of showing that his counsel's performance during the underlying criminal trial was deficient.Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to distribute a substance containing cocaine base and one count of malicious damage or destruction of property by fire. At sentencing, the trial court determined that Appellant was a career offender in part because his prior Maine state court conviction for unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs qualified as a "controlled substance offense" under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. In this collateral challenge to his sentence, Appellant argued that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel during his sentencing hearing based on his counsel's failure to object to the use of the Maine drug conviction as a predicate offense for the career offender enhancement. The First Circuit denied relief, holding that Appellant's ineffective assistance claim failed. View "Thompson v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of extortionate interstate communications and threatening to injury property or reputation, holding that Defendant did not meet his burden on any of his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the government improperly relied on statements made by a non-testifying witness in its closing argument and improperly instructed the jury that provocation was not a defense. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor's use of the statement at issue was improper, but the improper comment did not likely affect the outcome of the trial; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving a provocation instruction; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's request for a downward departure. View "United States v. Cantwell" on Justia Law