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

Jayne Carbone was convicted of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from her elderly uncle, Wayne Kerr, who suffered from Parkinson's disease and cancer. Carbone had access to Kerr's finances as his personal assistant and used this access to transfer funds from his accounts to herself. She was found guilty on all counts after a five-day jury trial in October 2021.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Carbone's motions to continue the testimonies of two key government witnesses, including Kerr, whose deposition was taken before trial due to his declining health. Carbone argued that the short notice for the deposition did not give her counsel adequate time to prepare. The court also admitted the testimonies of these witnesses over Carbone's objections.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and found Carbone's claims meritless. The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance motions or in admitting the testimonies. The appellate court noted that Carbone failed to demonstrate specific, concrete ways in which the denial of the continuance resulted in substantial prejudice to her defense. The court also found that the District Court did not err in admitting Kerr's deposition testimony without a competency hearing, as the evidence showed Kerr was competent at the time of his deposition. Additionally, the court ruled that the government's late disclosure of witness Christine Brown's testimony was reasonable under the circumstances and that her testimony was specially relevant to establish Carbone's motive for the theft. The appellate court affirmed Carbone's convictions. View "United States v. Carbone" on Justia Law

Michel D'Angelo, also known as Karma, appealed the denial of his motion for compassionate release. D'Angelo had been convicted of robbing Kennebunk Savings Bank in Berwick, Maine, in 2012. Disguised and armed with a screwdriver, he threatened to detonate a bomb if the teller set off the alarm, stealing $1,298. His girlfriend, Jennica, assisted by making false 911 calls. D'Angelo pleaded guilty to bank robbery in 2014 and was sentenced to 180 months in prison, designated as a "career offender" due to his extensive criminal history and mental health issues.The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine sentenced D'Angelo, considering his criminal history and mental health problems. His sentence was affirmed on appeal, and subsequent motions, including a motion to vacate his sentence, were denied. D'Angelo later filed for compassionate release, arguing that his sentence would be lower if recalculated under the Supreme Court's decision in Borden v. United States, which affected the classification of his prior offenses. He also cited his mental health issues and poor medical treatment in prison as extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. The district court denied his motion, emphasizing his potential dangerousness and the need to protect the public.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion based on the § 3553(a) factors. The appellate court found that the district court properly considered D'Angelo's criminal history, offense conduct, and potential danger to the community. The court also noted that the district court had acknowledged D'Angelo's revised Guidelines range but found that the § 3553(a) factors did not favor reducing his sentence. View "United States v. D'Angelo" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The Sentencing Guidelines recommended a sentence of 15 to 21 months for the drug charge and a consecutive 60 months for the firearm charge. However, the district court imposed an upward variance, sentencing the defendant to 96 months for the firearm charge and 18 months for the drug charge, totaling 114 months in prison. The court justified the upward variance by citing the quantity of ammunition and magazines the defendant possessed and the need for deterrence.The case was initially reviewed by the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The defendant pled guilty to the charges of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime and possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The district court dismissed the charges of possessing a machinegun and heroin by agreement. The district court then sentenced the defendant to a total of 114 months in prison, which was 33 months above the high end of the guideline range, citing the additional contraband and the need for deterrence due to Puerto Rico's high rate of firearm offenses and murders.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The defendant argued that the upward variance was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the district court provided sufficient reasons for the upward variance. The court noted that the additional contraband and the need for deterrence were valid factors for the upward variance. The court concluded that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable and upheld the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Rosario-Merced" on Justia Law

In the early morning of January 9, 2021, Alex Manuel López-Felicie and two accomplices broke into a closed pharmacy, stole an ATM containing approximately $21,580, and fled in a pickup truck. They were pursued by police officers in an unmarked car, leading to a shootout in a residential area. López was shot in the leg and later arrested. A firearm covered in López's blood was found nearby, although López denied firing a gun.López was indicted on one federal charge of bank larceny under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b). He pled guilty, and the parties agreed on a guideline range of 12 to 18 months in prison, based on a total offense level of 13 and a criminal history category of I. Both the government and López recommended a sentence within this range. However, the district court sentenced López to 60 months, citing the seriousness of the offense and the substantial risk of harm caused by the discharge of firearms during the flight.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. López argued that the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable, claiming the district court did not sufficiently justify the upward variance and that the record did not support findings that he possessed or fired a weapon. The appellate court found no procedural or substantive error, noting that the district court had adequately explained its decision, considered the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and made reasonable factual findings. The court affirmed the 60-month sentence, concluding that the district court's decision was justified given the circumstances of the case. View "US v. Lopez-Felicie" on Justia Law

In 2017, Ángel Manuel Carmona-Alomar was found in possession of a modified 9mm Glock pistol, ammunition, marijuana, and Percocet pills during a vehicle search by Puerto Rico Police. He admitted ownership of the firearm and ammunition. Subsequently, he was charged and pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and possession of a machinegun. He was sentenced to thirty months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. In 2020, while on supervised release, Carmona was again found with a modified firearm and ammunition, leading to new charges and a supervised release violation.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico sentenced Carmona to sixty months in prison for the new charges and an additional two years for the supervised release violation, to be served consecutively. The court justified the upward variance from the sentencing guidelines by citing Carmona's repeated offenses, lack of remorse, and the serious nature of machinegun possession, particularly in the context of Puerto Rico's gun violence issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Carmona argued that the District Court erred procedurally by not providing case-specific reasons for the upward variance and by relying on factors already accounted for in the guidelines. He also contended that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit found no merit in these arguments, noting that the District Court had appropriately considered Carmona's repeated offenses and the specific context of gun violence in Puerto Rico. The appellate court affirmed both the sixty-month sentence for the new charges and the two-year sentence for the supervised release violation, concluding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. View "US v. Carmona-Alomar" on Justia Law

Hector Rodriguez-Pena was convicted in 1993 for his involvement in a drug trafficking conspiracy, firearms possession, and the attempted murder of federal law enforcement officers. He was sentenced to a total of 622 months' imprisonment, which was later reduced to 570 months. Over the years, Rodriguez-Pena has repeatedly challenged his sentence and conviction through various legal avenues, including direct appeals and motions for sentence modifications, all of which were denied.Rodriguez-Pena filed a motion for compassionate release in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, citing his vulnerability to COVID-19 due to his health conditions and the prevalence of the virus in his prison facility, FCI Coleman Low. He argued that his medical conditions, including high blood pressure and hyperlipidemia, increased his risk of severe complications from COVID-19. The district court denied his motion, concluding that he did not demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction, particularly noting his vaccination status and the low COVID-19 infection rates in his facility.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Rodriguez-Pena's risk from COVID-19, given his vaccination status and the conditions at FCI Coleman Low, did not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. The court also noted that the district court properly considered the evidence and arguments presented, including the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the current state of the pandemic within the prison. View "US v. Rodriguez-Pena" on Justia Law

The appellant, Calvin Mendes, pleaded guilty to multiple drug-related charges and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to concurrent thirty-month prison terms followed by three years of supervised release. Mendes repeatedly violated the conditions of his supervised release, leading to three revocations. The first revocation resulted in a one-day prison sentence and a new nineteen-month supervised release term. The second revocation also resulted in a one-day prison sentence and a new twelve-month supervised release term. The third revocation was due to multiple violations, including drug use and associating with a felon.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a third revocation hearing. The court agreed not to consider one of the alleged violations (Violation V) on the merits but noted that the guideline sentencing range would be affected. The government recommended a thirty-month prison sentence, citing Mendes' repeated violations and lack of respect for the law. Mendes argued for a lesser sentence, highlighting his mental health struggles and lack of housing. The district court sentenced Mendes to thirty months in prison with no supervised release to follow.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Mendes argued that his sentence was procedurally flawed because the district court did not adequately explain the upward variance, improperly considered unproven criminal conduct, and relied on community-based considerations. The Court of Appeals found that the district court provided a sufficient explanation for the upward variance, emphasizing Mendes' repeated violations. The court also determined that the district court did not rely on unproven criminal conduct or improper community-based considerations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentence. View "United States v. Mendes" on Justia Law

Damian Cortez was involved in a criminal case where he was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, and possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. The government alleged that Cortez was part of a Massachusetts gang known as "NOB" and was involved in various criminal activities, including drug trafficking. Cortez conditionally pled guilty to the charges after his motions to suppress evidence obtained from two search warrants were denied by the district court.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Cortez's motions to suppress evidence seized from an apartment in Attleboro, Massachusetts, and from two cell phones. Cortez argued that the affidavit supporting the search warrant for the apartment did not establish probable cause that he was involved in a RICO conspiracy or that he resided in the apartment. He also requested a Franks hearing, claiming that the affidavit contained false statements and omissions. The district court found that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause and denied the request for a Franks hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the affidavit established probable cause to believe that Cortez was involved in a RICO conspiracy and that he resided in the Attleboro apartment. The court noted that the affidavit included evidence from GPS data, photographic evidence, and direct observations linking Cortez to the apartment. The court also found that Cortez did not make a substantial preliminary showing that the affidavit contained false statements or omissions necessary to warrant a Franks hearing. Therefore, the court upheld the denial of the motion to suppress and the request for a Franks hearing. View "United States v. Cortez" on Justia Law

In 2009, Guillermo González-Santillan fled Puerto Rico to avoid his sentencing hearing for conspiracy to commit money laundering, after pleading guilty as part of a plea agreement. He remained a fugitive for thirteen years until he was apprehended in the Dominican Republic and returned to the United States. Upon his return, the government sought a two-point obstruction-of-justice sentencing enhancement due to his abscondment.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico initially accepted González-Santillan's guilty plea and scheduled a sentencing hearing. However, after he failed to appear, the court revoked his bail and issued an arrest warrant. Following his capture, the court ordered an updated presentence report, which included the government's recommended obstruction-of-justice enhancement. González-Santillan objected, arguing that the plea agreement barred the enhancement and that the government failed to prove willfulness in his failure to appear.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the obstruction-of-justice enhancement. The appellate court found that González-Santillan's thirteen-year abscondment clearly demonstrated willfulness, as evidenced by his failure to attend a scheduled probation meeting, his sentencing hearing, and his subsequent flight to another country. The court also concluded that the government did not breach the plea agreement by seeking the enhancement, as González-Santillan's abscondment constituted a material breach of the agreement, thereby releasing the government from its original obligations.The First Circuit affirmed González-Santillan's seventy-month sentence, upholding the district court's application of the obstruction-of-justice enhancement. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Santillan" on Justia Law

The case involves Wilfredo Isaac-Delgado, who was serving a term of supervised release after completing a prison term for federal offenses related to a bank robbery. During his supervised release, Isaac tested positive for multiple controlled substances, failed to abide by the regulations of his residential reentry center, and was charged with violating Puerto Rico's domestic violence statute for harassing a former romantic partner. Isaac's probation officer detailed these actions, each of which violated the conditions of Isaac's supervised release, in two motions to the district court. Those motions requested that the court revoke Isaac's supervised release. Isaac informed the court that he would not be contesting the violations described by his probation officer. Instead, he identified mitigating circumstances that, in his view, justified a sentence within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range.The district court, relying on the uncontested representations about Isaac's conduct from the probation officer, imposed a sentence more than three times longer than the high end of the Guidelines range. Isaac challenged that sentence as procedurally unreasonable. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found no procedural flaw and affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court. The court held that Isaac's admission to the violations detailed in the probation officer's motions provided a sufficiently reliable basis for the factual finding regarding his prescribed medication. The court also held that the district court satisfied its obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) by considering and rejecting Isaac's argument that his mental health and substance abuse treatment was working. View "United States v. Delgado" on Justia Law