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

The First Circuit vacated the federal convictions challenged on appeal by the two defendants in this case - Noel de Leon-De la Rosa and Juan Batista Johnson-Debel - holding that vacatur was required of Defendants' challenged convictions for different reasons.Defendants were both convicted of destruction of a controlleded substance while on a vessel and conspiracy to destroy a controlled substance while on a vessel (counts five and six). The First Circuit vacated Defendants' of counts five and six, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) the admission of Johnson's statement in the defendants' joint trial violated De Leon's rights under the Confrontation Clause to the Federal Constitution; and (3) as to Johnson's convictions, the district court constructively amended the indictment through its instructions to the jury. View "United States v. De Leon-De la Rosa" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to vacate her federal conviction and sentence on the grounds that her appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), for failing to raise a claim on direct appeal under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), holding that the district court erred.Defendant and her co-defendants were convicted of various drug-trafficking offenses. In their direct appeals, Defendant's co-defendants successfully argued that the government's failure to produce several clearly relevant documents that plainly called into question the credibility of the government's key witnesses against Defendant and her co-defendants violated their due process rights under Brady. The First Circuit vacated the co-defendants' convictions and remanded for a new trial. Because Defendant did not raise the Brady violation on her simultaneous appeal, she was denied relief. Thereafter, Defendant brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) Defendant established prejudice under Strickland; and (2) the failure to raise the Brady claim was the result of deficient performance by appellate counsel. View "Flores-Rivera v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for a mental competency examination and motion to withdraw his plea and then sentencing him for his offenses, holding that there was no error.Defendant pleaded guilty to to two armed carjackings, armed robbery, and using and carrying a firearm in connection with a carjacking. More than three months after Defendant entered his plea a sentencing hearing was held. At the hearing, Defendant requested a mental competency examination and moved to withdraw his plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 on the grounds that he was confused at the change-of-plea hearing and felt pressure to plead as a result. The district court denied both motions and then sentenced Defendant a term nine months above the sentencing guidelines range. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err when it denied Defendant's motion for a determination of mental competency and motion to withdraw his plea; and (2) pronounced a sentence that was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Ramos-David" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the criminal proceedings against him, holding that Appellant was statutorily barred under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) from bringing a collateral attack in his criminal proceeding.Defendant was charged with violating 8 U.S.C. 1326, which makes it a felony to unlawfully enter the United States while an order of removal is outstanding. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him, arguing that the government may not use his prior removal order to prove the "outstanding order of removal" element of the crime. Defendant thus sought to dismiss his indictment based on a due process-based collateral attack on the order of removal, arguing that the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's first argument had already been rejected by this Court since the district's ruling; and (2) because the removal proceeding was not fundamentally unfair Defendant did not satisfy the conditions under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) that would permit him to collaterally attack his prior removal. View "United States v. Castillo-Martinez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion under the First Step Act (codified as amended in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C., 21 U.S.C., and 34 U.S.C.) to reduce his sentence for a more than decade-old federal drug offense, holding that the motion was moot.In 2000, Defendant received a sentence for his convictions and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment followed by supervised release. While Defendant's supervised release from prison began in 2007, Defendant thrice violated the terms of his supervised release and was sentenced in 2010 to six months' imprisonment. In 2019, Defendant moved to have his fully-served sentence reduced under the First Step Act. The district court denied the motion as moot. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing Defendant's First Step Act motion as moot. View "United States v. Melendez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of three drug trafficking offenses after law enforcement officers discovered cocaine and heroin inside of his vehicle, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the officers stopped his vehicle without reasonable suspicion, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, the drugs found inside of the vehicle were inadmissible as evidence. The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the officers had probable cause to arrest Defendant when they conducted the vehicle containment in this case. View "United States v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with his conviction of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, holding that the sentencing outcome was defensible.Defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. The district court concluded that a forty-six-month term of immurement was an appropriate punishment and sentenced him to an incarcerative sentence of that length. Defendant appealed, arguing that, in fashioning his sentence, the district court overemphasized aggravating factors and overlooked mitigating factors. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Ruperto-Rivera" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendants' convictions of multiple counts of introducing through their work at the New England Compounding Center (NECC) "misbranded" drugs into interstate commerce with the intent to defraud or mislead, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Defendants Kathy Chin and Michelle Thomas worked at NECC, a compounding pharmacy that distributed a contaminated medication that led to illnesses and deaths of patients across the country. Defendants were among fourteen individuals affiliated with NECC who were charged with criminal offenses related to the contaminated medication. A jury found Defendants guilty of the counts that each faced. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence; (2) the statute setting forth the underlying offense was not void for vagueness as applied to Defendants; and (3) none of Defendants' grounds for overturning the district court's rulings under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 had merit. View "United States v. Chin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment on Count I of Plaintiff's complaint seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 but reversed the entry of summary judgment on Count IX, holding that unconstitutional conduct of police officers violated the clearly established law of the Supreme Court, as set forth in Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6 (2013).Plaintiff brought this complaint against the Town of Orono, the chief of the Orono Police Department, and four police officers with whom he interacted during two encounters in 2016 - one in February and one in September - both of which resulted in his being arrested without a warrant on charges that were subsequently dropped. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly granted summary judgment on Count I relating to the February incident; but (2) erred in granting summary judgment on Count IX relating to the September incident. View "French v. Merrill" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's consecutive upwardly variant sentences imposed in two criminal cases, holding that both sentences were procedurally and substantively reasonable.While on bail pending trial for drug and firearm-related charges, Defendant was arrested and charged in a separate case with receipt of a firearm while under indictment for a felony. Defendant pleaded guilty to the firearm offenses in both cases and requested to be sentenced for both counts of conviction in a single proceeding. The district court granted the requested and sentenced Defendant to upwardly variant sentences. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's sentences in both cases were procedurally reasonable and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Vargas-Martinez" on Justia Law