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

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court revoking Defendant's supervised release and sentencing him to six months of imprisonment and an additional eight years of supervised release, holding that Defendant's constitutional rights were not violated.On appeal, Defendant argued that the revocation of his release violated his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and that his suspension from treatment violated his Fifth Amendment due process right. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) a court in this circuit can impose mandatory periodic polygraph examinations in connection with sex offender treatment programs as a condition of supervised release, where the condition prohibits basing revocation in any way on the defendant's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; (2) in this case, no penalty was attached to Defendant's potential invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, and therefore, his privilege was not violated; and (3) Defendant's suspension from sex offender treatment did not violate his Fifth Amendment right to due process. View "United States v. Rogers" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded this case for resentencing, holding that the district court must recalculate the Guidelines sentencing range.Defendant pleaded guilty to charges of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine. Before sentencing, Defendant argued that this prior conviction as a joint venturer for an otherwise violent crime did not qualify for career-offender status. The district court sentenced Defendant to thirty months' imprisonment and six years of supervised release. The government appealed, arguing that the district court erred in deciding not to apply the career-offender enhancement. The First Circuit vacated the sentence, holding that the case must be remanded for resentencing in light of United States v. Capelton, 966 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020). View "United States v. Maldonado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, holding that the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant but should have provided a sealed copy of the written statement of reasons (SOR) upon Defendant's request.Defendant's guidelines sentencing range (GSR) was thirty-three to forty-one months. The district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release - the statutory maximum - and denied Defendant's request to access the SOR. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence but remanded the case to give defense counsel access to the SOR, holding (1) the sentencing court did not err in relying on Defendant's criminal history and the type of weapon he possessed in sentencing Defendant; (2) the district court properly considered other relevant factors; and (3) Defendant should have been allowed to access the SOR. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Flores" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the police officers had reasonable suspicion to approach the vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger and direct its occupants to exit.Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of cash and drugs that were recovered from him and the other occupant of the car after officers instigated an investigatory motor vehicle stop. The district court denied the motion, holding that reasonable suspicion existed to support the traffic stop. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the police officers had reasonable suspicion that the vehicle's occupants were involved in illegal drug activity, and therefore, the officers' decision to approach the car and search Defendant did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Tom" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court revoking Defendant's supervised release after he was acquitted of a criminal assault charge arising from the same incident leading to his revocation, holding that the evidence supported a finding of revocation and that the sentence imposed was reasonable.The probation office petitioned for the arrest of Defendant for violating his supervised release by committing the offense of assaulting a U.S. Probation Office employee. A criminal complaint was also issued for the alleged assault. A jury acquitted Defendant of the criminal assault charge. The district judge proceeded to revoke Defendant's supervised release on the basis of the same conduct and sentenced him to twenty-four months' imprisonment followed by eight months of supervised release. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) acquitted conduct can be used to revoke supervised release due to the differing burdens of proof; (2) the evidence was sufficient to prove that Defendant committed an assault; and (3) Defendant's sentence was substantively and procedurally reasonable. View "United States v. Frederickson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence imposed after he pled guilty to six counts stemming from a robbery of a federal confidential informant during a guns-for-cash deal, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Defendant's challenge based on Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), to his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g), was without merit; (2) Defendant's challenge to the plea colloquy failed; (3) Defendant's challenge based upon United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), to the acceptance of his plea to aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 924(c), failed on plain error review; (4) the prosecutor did not breach plea agreement; and (5) Defendant's sentence of 198 months' imprisonment was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Farmer" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of committing, or aiding and abetting others in committing, the crimes of RICO conspiracy, drug conspiracy, and other crimes, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After Defendant was originally convicted the First Circuit vacated the convictions, concluding that the police lacked probable cause to search Defendant's house, and therefore, the seized evidence should have been suppressed. On remand, a jury again convicted Defendant of the relevant charges. Defendant appealed, claiming trial error and sentencing issues. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's claims of trial error were without merit; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; (3) the trial court did not err in instructing the jury; (4) there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of Defendant's motion for a new trial; and (5) Defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable. View "United States v. Cruz-Ramos" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for two counts of drug trafficking in international waters while aboard a stateless vessel in violation of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. 70501-08, holding that international law does not generally prohibit the United States from prosecuting drug traffickers found on a stateless vessel stopped and boarded by the United States on the high seas as if the drug traffickers had been found on a United States vessel subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Defendant's prosecution in the United States for drug trafficking on a stateless vessel stopped and boarded by the United States in waters subject to the rights of navigation on the high seas violated no recognized principle of international law; but (2) because Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines applies retroactively, this case must be remanded for resentencing so that the district court can have an opportunity to apply the new factors. View "United States v. Aybar-Ulloa" on Justia Law

The First Circuit held that the Wire Act's prohibitions are limited to interstate wire communications related to bets or wagers on sporting events or contests, thus affirming the district court's grant of Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment.In 2011, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a legal opinion concluding that the Wire Act's prohibitions were uniformly limited to sports gambling. In 2018, the OLC issued an opinion, which was later adopted by the DOJ, that all prohibitions in the Wire Act, with one exception, applied to all forms of bets or waters. In 2019, the New Hampshire Lottery Commission and one of its vendors commenced this action seeking relief under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The district court granted relief, ruling that the Wire Act was limited to sports gambling. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) this controversy is justiciable; and (2) the Wire Act applies only to interstate wire communications related to sporting events or contests. View "New Hampshire Lottery Commission v. Rosen" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Petitioner's petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate his sentence on the basis that he received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his rejection of a plea offer, holding that Petitioner failed to show prejudice from any deficient performance by counsel.After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of several charges arising out of a drug enterprise operating in a public housing project. Acting pro se, Petitioner filed a timely petition for postconviction relief, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner's counsel's performance was deficient when counsel failed to give Petitioner sufficient time to consider a plea offer and failed to advise him of the exposure to a life sentence; but (2) Petitioner failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). View "Feliciano-Rodriguez v. United States" on Justia Law