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

On December 15, 2021, Nashalie Rodríguez-Bermúdez was charged with possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute the same. Rodríguez entered a straight plea on July 7, 2022, and was sentenced by the federal District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on March 3, 2023, to 46 months of incarceration with five years of supervised release. Rodríguez appealed the sentence, arguing that the district court erred in its sentencing process.The District Court for the District of Puerto Rico received a presentence investigation report (PSR) and sentencing memoranda from both the defense and the government. The PSR recommended a four-point minimal participant adjustment, resulting in a Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months. The defense argued for a time-served sentence, while the government recommended 57 months, or alternatively, 48 months. During the sentencing hearing, the district court declined to definitively determine the applicable Guidelines range, stating that the sentence would be the same regardless of whether Rodríguez was a minimal participant.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court committed procedural error by failing to adequately explain why the 46-month sentence was appropriate irrespective of the applicable Guidelines range. The appellate court noted that the district court's reliance on the high end of the defense's proposed Guidelines range without a clear explanation of how the other § 3553(a) factors supported the sentence was insufficient. Consequently, the First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, emphasizing the need for a clear and adequate explanation for the chosen sentence. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Bermudez" on Justia Law

Between February 2014 and December 2015, United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) agents in Puerto Rico identified a pattern of suspicious packages being sent between Puerto Rico and New York. Upon inspection, these packages were found to contain cocaine and large sums of money concealed in household items. The investigation led to Miguel A. Reyes-Ballista (Reyes) and two co-conspirators. Reyes was indicted and, after a six-day trial, a jury convicted him of participating in two conspiracies to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and three counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.Reyes was sentenced to 170 months in prison with four years of supervised release. He appealed his convictions, arguing that the government provided insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Reyes also sought a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to inadequate communication with his attorney and poor performance at trial, which he argued violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the evidence presented at trial, including testimony from co-conspirators, surveillance footage, and fingerprint evidence, was sufficient to support Reyes's convictions for conspiracy. The court noted that Reyes's arguments regarding the credibility of witnesses and the lack of direct evidence placing him inside the post office did not undermine the jury's verdict. The court also dismissed Reyes's Sixth Amendment claim as premature, indicating that such claims are typically better suited for collateral proceedings where a more developed record can be established.The First Circuit affirmed Reyes's convictions and dismissed his Sixth Amendment claim without prejudice, allowing him the opportunity to raise the issue in a future collateral proceeding. View "United States v. Reyes-Ballista" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted of kidnapping resulting in death under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). The incident occurred in February 2019, when the defendant encountered the victim in downtown Boston, Massachusetts. They walked to his car together, and he later drove to his apartment in Providence, Rhode Island. Surveillance footage showed him carrying the victim's limp body into his apartment. Four days later, police found the victim's dead body in the defendant's car trunk in Delaware. The defendant was arrested and charged with kidnapping resulting in death.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts conducted the trial, where the jury found the defendant guilty. The court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The defendant appealed, alleging various errors in the district court proceedings, including issues with the indictment, denial of a bill of particulars, and the admission and exclusion of certain evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no error in the district court's proceedings. It held that the indictment was sufficient, the denial of a bill of particulars was not an abuse of discretion, and the evidence admitted and excluded was handled appropriately. The court also found that the jury instructions were proper and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Derek Muñoz-Gonzalez was indicted on multiple charges related to child pornography, including production, possession, and distribution. He agreed to plead guilty to two counts of producing child pornography. The plea agreement included a waiver-of-appeal clause, which stated that Muñoz waived his right to appeal if sentenced to 327 months or less. The district court sentenced him to 327 months. Muñoz appealed, claiming the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by advocating for two enhancements not included in the agreement's sentencing guidelines calculation and argued that the waiver-of-appeal clause did not preclude him from raising this breach claim.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico initially reviewed the case. Muñoz was charged by a federal grand jury and subsequently pleaded guilty to two counts of producing child pornography. The plea agreement stipulated an advisory guideline range of 262 to 327 months' imprisonment, and the government agreed to dismiss the other counts. At sentencing, the district court considered the stipulated facts and sentenced Muñoz to 327 months, within the waiver-of-appeal limit.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Muñoz argued that the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by highlighting facts not included in the guidelines calculation. The court held that the prosecutor did not breach the plea agreement, as the comments made were consistent with the stipulated facts and were in response to the defense's arguments for a lesser sentence. The court also noted that Muñoz failed to address the plain-error standard in his opening brief, resulting in a waiver of his breach-of-plea-agreement claim. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Munoz-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

In 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico revoked Kelvin García-Oquendo's terms of supervised release and imposed concurrent terms of 21 months and 18 months of imprisonment. This decision was based on findings that García had violated the conditions of his release by engaging in new criminal conduct, including identity theft and bank fraud.Previously, in 2013, García had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and aggravated identity theft, and in 2015, he pleaded guilty to unauthorized use and transfer of access devices. He was sentenced to a total of 89 months' imprisonment and five years of supervised release. In 2023, the Probation Office alleged that García had committed new crimes, leading to his arrest and a preliminary revocation hearing where probable cause was found for some of the allegations.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. García argued that the District Court erred by admitting hearsay testimony without proper balancing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b) and the Due Process Clause. The First Circuit agreed that the District Court erred in admitting the testimony but concluded that the error was harmless due to the strong circumstantial evidence supporting the violation findings. The court held that Rule 32.1's limited confrontation right applies to the entirety of the revocation proceeding, including the determination of post-revocation sanctions. However, it found that any error in considering the hearsay testimony during sentencing was also harmless, as the other evidence strongly supported the District Court's findings.The First Circuit affirmed the District Court's revocation order and sentences. View "United States v. Garcia-Oquendo" on Justia Law

Jadnel Flores-Nater, a member of a gang, participated in the kidnapping and murder of a victim in Puerto Rico. On June 8, 2018, Flores-Nater and four other gang members kidnapped the victim from a public housing complex, each carrying an assault rifle. They drove the victim to a remote area, where Flores-Nater and other gang members shot and killed him. Flores-Nater was charged with kidnapping resulting in death, using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence causing murder. He pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and the government agreed to dismiss the other charges.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico initially sentenced Flores-Nater to 360 months in prison, which was above the 120-month guideline and the 300-month recommendation in the plea agreement. Flores-Nater appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the sentence, finding it substantively unreasonable due to the district court's failure to articulate a plausible rationale for the upward variance. On remand, the district court again imposed a 360-month sentence, citing the high crime rate in Puerto Rico and the need for deterrence, but did not address Flores-Nater's argument regarding his age at the time of the offense.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case again. The court found that the district court committed procedural error by failing to explain whether and why it rejected Flores-Nater's argument that his youth at the time of the offense should be considered a mitigating factor. The appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, requiring the district court to provide a clear explanation of its reasoning, particularly regarding the defendant's age. The court did not find that the government breached the plea agreement by defending the higher sentence on appeal. View "United States v. Flores-Nater" on Justia Law

José Miguel Guzmán-Ceballos was sentenced to ninety months' imprisonment for his involvement in transporting 385 kilograms of cocaine from the Dominican Republic to Puerto Rico. He pleaded guilty to all counts without a plea agreement and sought a mitigating role adjustment under § 3B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which the district court denied. Guzmán-Ceballos argued that he was merely a fisherman recruited for the smuggling operation due to economic hardship and had no significant role in planning or organizing the venture.The District Court of Puerto Rico held a change-of-plea hearing where Guzmán-Ceballos pleaded guilty. At the sentencing hearing, he objected to the presentence report (PSR) for not applying the mitigating role adjustment. The district court denied his objection, adopted the PSR's recommendations, and sentenced him to ninety months' imprisonment, noting it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and his role in the offense. Guzmán-Ceballos timely appealed, arguing the district court failed to conduct the necessary legal analysis for the mitigating role adjustment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with Guzmán-Ceballos. The court found that the district court did not engage in the required four-part analysis to determine his role in the offense. Specifically, the district court failed to identify the universe of participants, order them along a continuum of culpability, and compare Guzmán-Ceballos's role to the average participant using the § 3B1.2 factors. The appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, instructing the district court to perform the correct mitigating role analysis. View "United States v. Ceballos" on Justia Law

In January 2018, Nycole Amaury Rosario Sánchez, then fifteen years old, and six accomplices committed a series of violent crimes in Puerto Rico, including three robberies, two carjackings, and four murders. Rosario brandished and discharged firearms during these crimes, resulting in multiple injuries and deaths. He was arrested on January 25, 2018, and agreed to be prosecuted as an adult. Rosario pleaded guilty to six counts, including interference with commerce by robbery, carjacking, and using a firearm during a crime of violence causing murder.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico sentenced Rosario to 480 months' imprisonment. Rosario appealed, arguing that the district court failed to consider mitigating factors such as his age, mental and emotional condition, and the sentencing disparity between him and his co-defendants. He also claimed that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court had considered Rosario's age, mental and emotional condition, and other mitigating factors, as evidenced by the sentencing transcript and the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). The court also noted that Rosario's co-defendants were sentenced by a different judge and that Rosario had not provided sufficient information to establish an unwarranted sentencing disparity.The First Circuit held that the district court did not commit procedural error in its consideration of the section 3553(a) factors or in addressing the sentencing disparity. The court also found that Rosario's sentence was substantively reasonable, given the seriousness of his offenses and his behavior while incarcerated. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed Rosario's 480-month sentence. View "United States v. Rosario Sanchez" on Justia Law

Thiago de Souza Prado was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft. The scheme involved defrauding rideshare and food delivery companies by creating and using fraudulent accounts, and misappropriating the identities of third parties. Prado, who was ineligible to drive for these companies due to numerous driving infractions and his unauthorized status in the U.S., initially used fraudulent accounts created by others and later began creating and renting out his own fraudulent accounts. He obtained driver's license images and Social Security numbers from various sources, including associates and the dark web, and used software to spoof GPS information to inflate driver fees and generate fake referral rewards.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts sentenced Prado to seventy months in prison. Prado appealed, challenging his convictions and sentence. He argued that he was prejudiced by an amendment to the third superseding indictment during trial and by the district court's refusal to disqualify the prosecution team. He also contended that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no error in the district court's decision to allow the amendment of the indictment, as it did not alter the substance of the charges. The court also upheld the district court's finding that the wall separating Levy, a former defense attorney who joined the U.S. Attorney's Office, from the prosecution team had not been breached. Additionally, the court determined that any potential errors in calculating loss and Prado's criminal history were harmless, as the district court indicated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless.The First Circuit affirmed Prado's convictions and sentence, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that Prado's sentence was reasonable. View "United States v. De Souza Prado" on Justia Law

Derek Capozzi was convicted in 1999 on three counts: possession of a firearm as a felon, attempted extortion, and use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement, resulting in a 360-month sentence. Capozzi's direct appeal was unsuccessful, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case. In 2005, Capozzi filed his first motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his prior convictions should not count as ACCA predicates. The district court denied the motion, finding that the presentence report indicated his prior convictions involved buildings, qualifying them as ACCA predicates.In 2015, Capozzi sought permission to file a second § 2255 motion based on the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, which invalidated the ACCA's residual clause. The district court granted the motion in part, vacating his firearm-in-furtherance conviction but denying his Johnson II claim, reasoning that the ACCA enhancement was not based solely on the residual clause. Capozzi appealed, arguing that the district court had jurisdiction to hear his Johnson II claim and that it erred in not conducting a resentencing hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Capozzi could not establish a Johnson II claim because his sentence was not based solely on the residual clause. The court found that the district court had relied on the enumerated clause, which was not invalidated by Johnson II. Consequently, Capozzi's claim was time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in opting to correct Capozzi's sentence without conducting a de novo resentencing. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Capozzi" on Justia Law