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

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying Defendant's motion for resentencing, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.In 2008, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base. While Defendant was serving his 228-month term of immurement Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, which reduced the penalties for most federal crimes involving crack cocaine. Thereafter, Defendant filed his motion for resentencing. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the sentencing court weighed the proper factors and made a reasonable judgment. View "United States v. Concepcion" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Defendant's appeal of his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and 924(a)(2), holding that the district court did not commit plain error by accepting Defendant's guilty plea and in denying his motion to suppress.Following Defendant's plea, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), under which the government must prove that the defendant knew he had the relevant status prohibiting possession. On appeal, Defendant argued (1) under Rehaif, the district court committed plain error during his plea colloquy by failing to inform him that the government was required to prove that he knew he was prohibited from possessing firearms; and (2) the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the search warrant issued for Defendant's residence was supported by probable cause; and (2) the district court did not plainly err by accepting Defendant's guilty plea. View "United States v. Austin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's eighteen-month sentence imposed for violating the conditions of his supervised release by committing a new crime, holding that Defendant had not suffered any prejudice from the delay in his supervised release revocation hearing.The revocation hearing concluded thirty months after the the United States Probation Office petitioned the district court to revoke supervised release and eight months after Defendant was taken into federal custody. On appeal, Defendant argued that his revocation hearing was unreasonably delayed in violation of his rights under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 and the due process clause of the United States Constitution. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's claim failed on the prejudice prong. View "United States v. Torres-Santana" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed this appeal of the district court's order sentencing Defendant to a seventy-eight-month term of immurement to be followed by five years of supervised release, holding that the court did not err by denying Defendant's request that the incarcerative portion of the sentence be ordered to run concurrently with any period of incarceration that might thereafter be imposed by the Puerto Rico courts in consequence of Defendant's violation of probation.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. The agreement contained a waiver-of-appeal provision stipulating that, if the imprisonment sentence imposed was seventy-eight months, Defendant waived the right to appeal any aspect of the court's judgment and sentence. After Defendant was sentenced he challenged the district court's failure to run his sentence concurrently with any sentence that any Puerto Rico court might impose for the probation violation. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no miscarriage of justice granting Defendant an exception to the enforcement of his appeal waiver. View "United States v. O'farrill-Lopez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to strike the federal government's notice of intent to seek the death penalty (Death Notice) that was untimely filed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motions to strike the Death Notice.Under the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico the federal government, if seeking the death penalty, must file a Death Notice within 180 days of an indictment containing a death-eligible offense. A Puerto Rico federal grand jury returned a five-count indictment charging Defendant with three offenses punishable by death. The government, however, did not file a Death Notice until after the 180-day deadline had expired. After Defendant unsuccessfully moved to strike the death penalty he appealed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to strike without an evidentiary hearing because the purpose of the Local Criminal Rule was satisfied and the untimely filed Death Notice did not prejudice Defendant. View "United States v. Pedro-Vidal" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendants - Rolando Millan-Machuca, Roberto Casado-Berrios, Miguel Rivera-Calcano, and Giordano Santana-Meledez - of racketeering and drug trafficking conspiracies, holding that Defendants' claims on appeal were unavailing.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) there was no merit to Defendants' claims of error in the admission of certain evidence; (3) Defendants' sentences were reasonable; and (4) Rivera-Calcano's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at his sentencing hearing is dismissed without prejudice. View "United States v. Millan-Machuca" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, armed bank robbery, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and other offenses, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's pretrial motion for severance; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a protective order relating to certain discovery materials; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to order the government to produce notes taken by law enforcement agents who interviewed a cooperating witness; and (4) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining claims of error. View "United States v. Padilla-Galarza" on Justia Law

The First Circuit held that a conviction under 21 U.S.C. 846 for conspiring to commit a controlled substance offense qualifies as a conviction for a controlled substance offense under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(b), even though section 846 does not require proof of an overt act.Defendant pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon and unlawful possession of a machine gun. In sentencing Defendant, the district court applied a controlled substance enhancement based on Defendant's previous drug distribution conspiracy conviction under 21 U.S.C. 846. On appeal, Defendant argued that his prior conviction did not qualify as a conspiracy offense for purposes of U.S.S.G. 2K2.1 because a conviction under section 846 does not have as an element the commission of an overt act. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that conspiring under section 846 is "conspiring" within the meaning of Application Note 1 to section 4B1.2(b). View "United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255(a), holding that Defendant was not actually prejudiced by instructions given to the jury in her case.Defendant was convicted of procuring naturalization based on false statements to immigration officials about her conduct during the Rwandan genocide and of procuring naturalization as an ineligible person. After the First Circuit affirmed the convictions, the Supreme Court decided Maslenjak v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1918 (2017), which held that the government must show that an illegality played a role in the acquisition of citizenship to prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1425(a). Defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the materiality instruction given in her case based on Maslenjak. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that any assumed Maslenjak error in the challenged instruction did not substantially influence the jury's decision. View "Munyenyezi v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the convictions received by Defendants, three former employees of the New England Compounding Center (NECC), for a number of federal offenses related to aspects of NECC's operation that were identified in the course of a federal criminal investigation into NECC's medication, holding that there was no prejudicial error.In 2012, patients across the country began falling ill after having been injected with a contaminated medication compounded by NECC. After many of these patients died, a federal criminal investigation ensued. A jury found Stepanets, Svirskiy, and Leary each guilty of committing multiple federal crimes. The First Circuit affirmed Defendants' convictions and Stepanets' sentence, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; (2) it was not clear or obvious error under the Eighth Amendment for the district court to impose the sentence that Stepanets received; (3) Svirskiy's challenges to his convictions were without merit; and (4) Leary's arguments on appeal were unavailing. View "United States v. Stepanets" on Justia Law