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

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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, robbery, and discharging and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, holding that there was no error in Defendant's convictions or sentence.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in admitting hearsay evidence and erred in instructing the jury on vicarious liability. Defendant further argued that the district court erroneously applied the official-victim adjustment in United States Sentencing Guidelines 3A1.2. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) any impermissible inference of guilt drawn from the contested statements was harmless; (2) the district court's jury instructions were not incorrect or misleading as to the two theories of vicarious liability; and (3) there was no error in the district court's Sentencing Guidelines calculation. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of mailing threatening communications through the United States Postal Service, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 876(c), holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.After a jury found Defendant guilty of both counts of mailing threatening communications Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the evidence sufficed to permit a rational jury to find Defendant guilty of both counts. On appeal, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence with respect only to the third element of the offense. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that a rational jury could have found that Defendant knew his statements would be interpreted as true threats of physical harm. View "United States v. Oliver" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to overturn his 2010 New Hampshire conviction for aggravated felonious sexual assault, holding that the district court properly rejected Petitioner's Sixth Amendment claim.In his habeas petition, Petitioner asserted that his Sixth Amendment right to autonomy to determine the objectives of his defense when his counsel took certain actions to present a defense at trial, despite Petitioner's instructions not to do so. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not denied autonomy to direct the objectives of his defense when his trial counsel presented an active defense contrary to Petitioner's express wishes. View "Kellogg-Roe v. Gerry" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence recovered during a traffic stop, holding that the district court did not err when it denied the motion to suppress.Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, reserving the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress both statements he made at the scene of his traffic stop and the physical evidence obtained during the stop. In denying the motion to suppress, the district court concluded that the law enforcement officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant's car. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the officer had a reasonable basis to believe Appellant had committed a traffic infraction and thus to perform a traffic stop. View "United States v. Miles" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of knowingly distributing child pornography, holding that the district court did not err in excluding the testimony of Dr. Robert Weiss, a therapist and relationship specialist with a speciality in sex addiction.Defendant's prisonmate, Dmitry Bron, was working with law enforcement when Defendant shared his collection of images of child sexual abuse with Bron. At trial, Defendant attempted to pursue an entrapment defense and sought to introduce the testimony of Dr. Weiss. The district court granted the government's motion to exclude Dr. Weiss, concluding that the testimony was not relevant to Defendant's defense. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Weiss's testimony on the ground that it was not relevant. View "United States v. Saemisch" on Justia Law