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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for certain drug-trafficking offenses, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of its allegations of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of cocaine with like intent. On appeal, Defendant raised four claims of error. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of a wiretap; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in removing a juror for cause; (3) there was no plain error in the court's challenged evidentiary rulings; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of certain intercepted phone calls was not substantially outweighed by any unfairly prejudicial effect. View "United States v. Encarnacion" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Upon executing a no-knock search warrant following reports of discharged shots the police found two shotguns and related paraphernalia in Defendant's bedroom. In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the police exceeded the scope of the warrant by searching his bedroom, which was located on the third floor of the building, because the searched warrant was for "88 Foundation St. 2nd floor." The district court denied the motion, concluding that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the officers reasonably believed that the warrant permitted the search of Defendant's third-floor bedroom. View "United States v. Pimentel" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and other offenses and resentencing him to a 300-month sentence, holding that Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable.Defendant, who had been imprisoned for the last thirteen years for tax fraud and his role and an armed standoff with the U.S. Marshals Service, filed a second motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The district court granted the motion and subsequently resentenced Defendant to a term that was 144 months below the prior sentence. Defendant appealed, raising two constitutional objections to his sentence and challenging the reasonableness of his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's constitutional challenges were without merit; (2) there was no procedural error in the district court proceedings; and (3) the sentence imposed was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The First Circuit held that a district court, when adjudicating a prisoner-initiated motion for compassionate release, is not bound by the Sentencing Commission's current policy statement and may consider the First Step Act's (FSA) non-retroactive changes in sentencing law on an individualized basis to determine whether an extraordinary and compelling reason exists for compassionate release.While Defendant was serving his sentence Congress passed the FSA. See Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. The FSA reduced certain enhanced mandatory minimum penalties and modified the criteria for qualifying prior offenses and also amended the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), to allow prisoners to file their own motions for compassionate release. Defendant subsequently moved for compassionate release. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the FSA's changes could not support an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. The First Circuit vacated the judgment below, holding that the court erred by concluding, as a matter of law, that the FSA's prospective changes to the mandatory minimum penalties could not, even when considered on an individualized basis, support a decision for compassionate release. View "United States v. Ruvalcaba" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the forty-six-month sentence Defendant received after pleading guilty to various firearm offenses, holding that the district court erred in finding that Defendant was an unlawful drug user at the time of his offenses.Defendant was charged with dealing firearms without a license and illegally possessing a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A) and 922(o). In sentencing Defendant, the district court classified Defendant as an unlawful user of marijuana at the time of his offenses, thus applying U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)'s "prohibited person" enhancement. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that the government did not meet its burden of proving qualifying drug use. View "United States v. Espinoza-Roque" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant Jose Mulero-Vargas and and Luis Merced-Marcia were charged with aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Both men entered guilty pleas to the counts. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by holding him responsible for two machine-guns. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court was entitled to draw a reasonable inference that Defendant, at the very least, constructively possessed the second machine-gun; and (2) Defendant's 168-month aggregate sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Mulero-Vargas" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's twelve-month prison sentence that was imposed after he committed and admitted to multiple supervised release violations, holding the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.The government argued that Defendant's appeal was moot because he had been released from incarceration, even though he was still serving his term of supervised release. The First Circuit held (1) this case was not mooted as a result of Defendant's release from incarceration; and (2) the sentence imposed in this case was defensible, and its duration was not an abuse of discretion. View "United States v. Reyes-Barreto" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendants' claims that their prosecutions ran afoul of the prohibition in a congressional appropriations rider against spending federal funds to prosecute criminal defendants for marijuana-related offenses, holding that there was no error.The appropriations rider at issue placed a practical limit on federal prosecutors' ability to enforce the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., with respect to certain conduct involving medical marijuana. Defendants - two individuals and three companies - were indicted for marijuana-related offenses. Defendants moved to enjoin their prosecutions pursuant to the appropriations rider. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the appropriations rider did not bar the pending federal prosecution against Defendants. View "United States v. Bilodeau" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction, entered following his guilty plea, for aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime and aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, holding that there was no error.Following his guilty plea, the district court sentenced Defendant to serve an eighteen-month term of immurement on the drug-trafficking count and a consecutive 144-month term of immurement on the firearms count. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding (1) Defendant failed to demonstrate that the plea agreement was unenforceable because one section of the agreement lacked his signature; and (2) Defendant's sentence on the firearms count was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Merced-Garcia" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendants' convictions for conspiring to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base, holding that neither Defendant was entitled to relief on his claims of error.Defendants Juan Pena and Rosnil Ortiz were convicted for conspiring to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base. On appeal, Defendants argued that the district court erred in allowing the jury to consider certain video recordings and the "out-of-court" statements captured therein. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not commit reversible error in admitting certain portions of two videos and the audio statements therein; (2) did not deny Defendants' constitutional rights to confront witnesses and to present a complete defense by excluding certain statements, as Defendants intended to use them; and (3) did not deprive Defendants of their right to an impartial tribunal by instructing the jury mid-cross-examination that it was proper for law enforcement agents to use confidential informants and to take drug weight into account when directing controlled drug purchases. View "United States v. Pena" on Justia Law