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

The First Circuit affirmed Appellant's plea of guilty to one count of investment adviser fraud, four counts of wire fraud, and one count of aggravated identity theft, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Appellant argued that her plea was not knowing and voluntary, that the evidence was insufficient to convict her of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, that several sentencing enhancements were improperly applied, and that her counsel was ineffective. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the district court's acceptance of Appellant's guilty plea; (2) Appellant's conduct clearly satisfied the statutory requirements for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft; and (3) Appellant's challenges to several aspects of her sentence were unavailing. View "United States v. Kitts" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the district court did not err in its application of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1) and in its imposition of a mandatory fifteen-year sentence.Defendant pled guilty to a felon in possession charge. The district court concluded that, due to his four prior Maine burglary convictions, Defendant qualified for the ACCA's enhanced mandatory minimum penalty, and sentenced Defendant to fifteen years' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in applying the ACCA to Defendant based on his prior burglary convictions in Maine; and (2) this Court declines to overturn its prior decision in United States v. Duquette, 778 F.3d 314 (1st Cir. 2015), and its application of the categorical approach to the statute at issue here. View "United States v. Bowers" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed Defendants' appeals from the trial court's refusal to dismiss their indictments, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to review before final judgment the district court's order denying Defendants' motions to dismiss.A United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts charged Massachusetts state district court judge Shelley Joseph and Wesley MacGregor, her courtroom deputy, for allegedly interfering with the enforcement of federal immigration law. Defendants filed motions to dismiss their indictments based on Judge Joseph's claim of absolute judicial immunity and on their contention that their prosecution was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motions to dismiss, and Defendants appealed. The First Circuit dismissed the appeals as premature, holding that, at this stage in the proceedings, this Court had no jurisdiction to review the merits of the district court's rulings. View "United States v. Joseph" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence of ninety months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release for his conviction for one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), holding that the evidence did not support the application of a sentencing enhancement.On appeal, Defendant argued that his sentence could not stand because it was predicated on the application of a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) that the record did not support. Defendant argued that the district court erred in applying the enhancement, which was based on Defendant's possession of firearms "in connection with drug trafficking, a felony offense," because it improperly relied on a conclusory allegation that Defendant was working as an armed enforcer for a drug trade organization. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the evidence did not support the sentencing enhancement's application. View "United States v. Carrion-Melendez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed as moot Gary Lee Sampson's appeal from his death sentence for murder and declined to exercise its equitable discretion to vacate the death sentence, holding that Sampson's convictions, life sentence, and death sentence remain intact.Following a retrial, a unanimous jury sentenced Sampson to death for committing a murder. Sampson appealed. While his appeal was pending, Sampson died in prison. The First Circuit held (1) the parties correctly agree that Sampson's underlying convictions and life sentence cannot, as a matter of law, be vacated; and (2) as to the death sentence, the appeal was moot. View "United States v. Sampson" on Justia Law

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