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

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with her conviction for maintaining a drug-involved premises, holding that the lack of evidence on the critical issue in this case required that the case be remanded for resentencing.The trial court sentenced Defendant to a below-the-range term of immurement of thirty-four months, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Defendant argued that the record evidence did not support the district court's determination that Defendant, above and beyond providing her apartment as a drug-involved premises, could be said to have participated in the drug operation, and therefore, the district court erred by declining to apply the offense-level cap limned in U.S.S.G. 2D1.8(a). The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that the record did not permit a reasoned determination that Defendant participated in the drug operation within the meaning of section 2D1.8(a)(2). View "United States v. Patch" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's forty-eight-month prison sentence that the district court imposed after Defendant entered a guilty plea to one count of firearm possession, holding that resentencing was required in this case.The district court imposed a variant sentence of forty-eight months - eighteen months more than the top of the guidelines sentencing range and twice the length of the sentence that both parties recommended. On appeal, Defendant challenged both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court committed plain procedural error by imposing an upward variance without adequate explanation. View "United States v. Carrasquillo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence imposed after he entered a guilty plea to one count of machine-gun possession, holding that the district court failed to offer an adequate explanation for its upward variance from the applicable sentencing range under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.The district court imposed a variant sentence of forty-two months' imprisonment, twelve months more than the top of the Guidelines sentencing range. On appeal, Defendant argued that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that the district court committed procedural error when it failed to offer an adequate explanation for its upward variance. View "United States v. Garcia-Perez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed in connection with Defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiring to possess with intent to distribute the same, holding that there was no error in the sentence.After a lengthy sentencing proceeding, the district court denied Defendant safety-valve relief, concluding that Defendant had not met her duty of disclosure to the government under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(5). The court proceeded to impose the mandatory five-year term of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that she met the disclosure obligation of section 3553(f)(5). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant was ineligible for safety-valve relief because she failed truthfully and completely to disclose the information that she possessed concerning her offense of conviction. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's eight-month sentence for unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), holding that the bare criminal complaint did not provide reliable evidence to support the district court's finding that Defendant had previously used a weapon to cut another person.Defendant's sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines was eight to fourteen months. Defendant urged the district court to issue a below-Guidelines sentence based on, among other grounds, the fact that unlawful reentry is a non-violent, victimless crimes. In sentencing Defendant to eight months' imprisonment the district court relied upon allegations in a Puerto Rico complaint that Defendant had previously used a weapon to cut another person. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court abused its discretion by relying on a bare allegation that was both challenged by Defendant and unsupported by any other indicia of reliability to justify a longer sentence than otherwise would have been imposed. View "United States v. Castillo-Torres" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district judge ordering a joint retrial of Roger Boncy and Joseph Baptiste in the interest of justice because neither defendant got a fair first trial, holding that Defendants showed deficient performance of counsel and that Defendants were prejudiced.After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted of conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Travel Act, and Baptiste was convicted of violating the Travel Act and conspiring to violate the Money Laundering Act. Baptist moved for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Boncy also requested a separate trial on the grounds that Baptiste's lawyer's ineffectiveness influenced the jury's view of both defendants and thus impaired Boncy's due process right to a fair proceeding. The district judge found that the cumulative effect of counsel's deficiencies prejudiced both Baptiste and Boncy. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the government's arguments on appeal were unavailing. View "United States v. Baptiste" on Justia Law

The First Circuit confirmed the convictions of Carlos Velazquez-Fontanez and Jose D. Resto-Figueroa for various criminal offenses related to La Rompe ONU, a drug trafficking organization that operated in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and vacated the convictions of Ruben Cotto-Andino, holding that, as to Cotto-Andino, the court committed reversible error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence against all three defendants was sufficient to support their RICO conspiracy convictions, their 21 U.S.C. 846 convictions, and their 18 U.S.C. 36(b)(2) convictions; (2) the district court's limitation of Cotto-Andino's rebuttal of the government's uncharged murder evidence exceeded the bounds of the court's discretion, was not harmless, and required that Cotto-Andino's convictions be vacated; (3) the remainder of Cotto-Andino's challenges to the admission of evidence were unavailing; (4) an error in the transcript did not warrant reversal of the district court's denial of a mistrial in favor of Resto-Figueroa; and (5) there was no error in the jury instructions. View "United States v. Velazquez-Fontanez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting three defendants of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) conspiracy with a special finding that defendant Noe Salvador Perez-Vasquez participated in the murder of one man and special findings that they each participated in the murder of another man, holding that the majority of Defendants' challenges lacked merit.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) there was no error in the district court's challenged evidentiary rulings; (3) the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in denying Hector Enamorado's motion for a mistrial based on Perez-Vasquez's closing argument; (4) the government's statements during its closing argument were not improper or prejudicial; (5) there was no error in the jury instructions; (6) Defendants' sentences were not procedurally unreasonable; and (7) Luis Solis-Vasquez's challenge to the district court's restitution order will be discussed in a later opinion. View "United States v. Perez-Vasquez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to a variety of drug and firearm offenses and sentencing him to 160 months' imprisonment, holding that Defendant should have been allowed to withdraw his plea.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to certain charged offenses in exchange for a 120-month sentence. Prior to sentencing, Defendant breached the plea agreement by assaulting a fellow inmate. Thereafter, the government withdrew from the agreement. Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to 160 months' imprisonment. The First Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, there was a fair and just reason for the withdrawal of Defendant's plea, and the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow Defendant to withdraw his plea. View "United States v. Gardner" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence imposed after he pled guilty to drug and firearm conspiracy counts, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant was a manager or supervisor of the drug conspiracy and applying a three-level enhancement.In sentencing Defendant, the district court found that he qualified for a three-level enhancement for being a manager or supervisor of the drug and firearm conspiracies, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(b). On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court's conclusion that he was a manager or supervisor of the drug conspiracy because he directed people to buy firearms and told them where to drive was erroneous. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, in light of the evidence, the district court correctly applied the section 3B1.1(b) enhancement. View "United States v. McKinney" on Justia Law