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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for several contraband-possession offenses, including being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court properly instructed the jury on joint possession; (2) the government presented sufficient evidence on the element of possession for all counts; (3) any possible error in the admission at trial of lay opinion testimony from law enforcement witnesses was harmless; and (4) Defendant made no showing that errors in his indictment, evidence, and jury instructions under the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), affected the outcome of his proceedings. View "United States v. Norris" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, holding that the district court did not err by not granting Defendant's motion to suppress.In his motion to suppress, Defendant sought to suppress evidence obtained after the execution of a search warrant at his residence, asserting errors and omissions in the underlying search warrant affidavit. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion, holding that the various motions that Defendant filed ultimately seeking to suppress the evidence seized from his residence were correctly denied. View "United States v. Maglio" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's upwardly variant sentence imposed in connection with his conviction for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant entered a straight guilty plea to two counts of possession of drugs with intent to distribute and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The district court imposed an aggregate incarcerate sentence of eighty-eight months. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the sentencing court erred in imposing an upwardly variant sentence without providing adequate justification. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no procedural error; and (2) the sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Valle-Colon" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the execution of a no-knock search warrant at the apartment where he and his girlfriend lived, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by failing to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his backpack because his backpack was not properly subject to search and erred in failing to find that there was insufficient justification for the no-knock provision of the warrant. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was nothing improper about the search; and (2) the district court did not commit plain error by not ruling that the no-knock provision was unsupported. View "United States v. Congo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's motion for unconditional discharge, holding that there was no reversible error in the district court's decision.In 2009, Defendant was civilly committed under the Adam Walsh Child and Protection and Safety Act, 120 Stat. 587. In 2012, Defendant was discharged from his civil commitment under conditions, including that he received supervised probation and mental health treatment. In 2018, Defendant moved for an unconditional discharge. The district court denied the motion but did remove many of Defendant's conditions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant had failed to show he would not be sexually dangerous to others if released unconditionally; and (2) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant had failed to meet his burden to show that he would not have "serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct." View "United States v. Hunt" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of eighty-four months' imprisonment imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred by quashing subpoenas issued to victims and by imposing a sentence that Defendant argued was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court's quashing of the subpoenas did not violate Defendant's due process rights; and (2) the upwardly variant sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Hernandez-Negron" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for compassionate release, alleging "extraordinary and compelling" reasons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for compassionate release.Defendant admitted that he had violated the conditions of his supervised release, and the district court imposed a thirty-month revocation sentence to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment. Defendant later filed the instant motion for compassionate release, alleging, among other things, that his pre-existing medical infirmities, along with the conditions of his confinement, posed a substantial risk of severe illness if should contract COVID-19. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's compassionate release motion. View "United States v. Canales-Ramos" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the amended judgment of the district court amending the restitution portion of Defendant's sentence, holding that the district court was divested of jurisdiction over the restitution order once the order was entered as part of Defendant's final criminal judgment.In 2011, the district court imposed a criminal sentence against Defendant. The original sentence included a restitution order to the corporate victim payee. In 2020, the district court amended the restitution portion of the sentence to substitute the receiver of the corporate victim as the restitution recipient. The First Circuit reversed the amended restitution order, holding (1) the district court invoked Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 for an amendment that could not be properly made under it; and (2) therefore, the district court acted without jurisdiction. View "United States v. Harvey" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized during a protective search of a car, holding that the actual-fear analysis set forth in United States v. Lott, 870 F.2d 778 (1st Cir. 1989), is no longer controlling.In Lott, the First Circuit held that officers cannot do a frisk for weapons where the officers were not actually concerned for their safety. The district judge in this case granted Defendant's motion to suppress after finding that while officers had an objectively reasonable basis to search the car, they had no subjective concerns for their safety. The First Circuit reversed the judge's evidence suppression and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that Lott is abrogated to the extent that it is inconsistent with the opinion in this case. View "United States v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for attempted illegal reentry into the United States, holding that the district court did not err in refusing Defendant's preferred jury instructions and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow presentation of a duress defense.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his requested jury instructions as to the requisite level of intent and in refusing to admit his petition for asylum into evidence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant did not make a threshold showing of duress the district court the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on this affirmative defense; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Defendant to present a duress defense. View "United States v. Florentino-Rosario" on Justia Law