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

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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions on six counts covering a range of federal crimes that stemmed from Defendant's use of a social security number assigned to another person, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in admitting into evidence a form that he submitted to the Social Security Administration in 2014 and wrongly permitted a former immigration officer to testify to the answers that Defendant gave in response to questioning at the Miami Intentional Airport. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by rejecting Defendant's objection to the admission of the form; and (2) did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the testimony of the former immigration official. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, and one count of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), holding that there was no error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop and admitting items seized from the vehicle at trial; (2) the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in admitting certain statements of lay witnesses; (3) the proceedings did not contravene Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial; and (4) Defendant's absence at certain pre-trial proceedings did not violate his statutory or constitutional presence rights. View "United States v. Reyes" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for interfering with commerce by threats or violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 2 (Hobbs Act robbery); and using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during and in retaliation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), holding that there was no error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Defendant's claim that Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence for purposes of section 924(c)(1)(A) was meritless; (2) the trial court did not err by admitting video surveillance footage; and (3) the trial court did not err in excluding impeachment evidence challenging the credibility of the government's cooperating witness. View "United States v. Torres-Correa" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court convicting Defendants, two brothers, of gun and drug crimes and sentencing them to 111 months' imprisonment, holding that there was no error in Defendant's convictions but that remand was required for resentencing.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the jury had sufficient evidence to find that the sale of guns sufficiently promoted, advanced, and made more likely to occur the sale of marijuana; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendants' Rule 29 motion allowing WhatsApp messages sent for a month after March 23, 2017 to be admitted when the indictment charged conduct only up through March 23, 2017; and (3) the district court erred in applying a four-point enhancement at sentencing pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). View "United States v. Ramirez-Frechel" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act (FSA), holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Defendant, an inmate, moved for compassionate release pursuant to the compassionate-release statute, arguing that, given his pre-existing medical conditions, his heightened risk of complications stemming from COVID-19 constituted an "extraordinary and compelling" reason warranting a sentence reduction. The district court denied the motion on the papers. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal were unavailing. View "United States v. Texeira-Nieves" on Justia Law