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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), holding that the life without parole sentence imposed by the district court was not unconstitutional and that Defendant's remaining claims of error were unavailing.On appeal, Defendant, who was twenty years old at the time he committed the charged crime, sought to vacate his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on Eighth Amendment grounds. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to make the case for extending the Miller ban on life-without-parole sentences to offenders like Defendant who were in the eighteen-to-twenty range when they committed the crimes of conviction; (2) the district court did not err in determining that Defendant had twice committed the predicate offense of first-degree murder even where the jury had been instructed only on second-degree murder; and (3) Defendant's sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, holding that the district court did not err in accepting Defendant's plea.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court failed to determine that there was a factual basis for his guilty plea, as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). The First Circuit disagreed, holding that Defendant's admission to participating in a conspiracy that involved at least one other person provided a reasoned basis to believe that he was guilty of conspiracy and that Defendant could not show that the district court's acceptance of his plea prejudiced him. View "United States v. Delarosa Arias" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for two counts of production of child pornography and two counts of transportation of a minor with the intent to engage in criminal activity, holding that the sentence was substantively reasonable.Defendant pleaded guilty, and his plea agreement tentatively calculated a prison term of 210 to 262 months. The district court made its own calculations, resulting in a proposed sentence of between 324 and 405 months. The court then granted Defendant a downward variance and sentenced him to a prison term of 300 months. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion by impermissibly balancing the sentencing pros and cons. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Jurado-Nazario" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of forty-two months' imprisonment for illegal possession of a machine gun, holding that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erroneously applied a four-level enhancement to his total offense level for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony of drug possession pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6). Specifically, Defendant argued that possession of a firearm in connection with mere drug possession for personal use was insufficient to apply the enhancement. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was clearly in possession of the firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking under this Court's case law, and therefore, the evidence was sufficient to justify an enhanced sentence for that reason; and (2) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Reyes-Torres" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for firearm-related convictions, holding that the district court properly applied two sentencing enhancements in this case.Defendant pleaded guilty to an information charging two federal firearms counts. The presentence investigation report applied a number of enhancements to determine an adjusted offense level, only two of which were relevant to this appeal. One of the enhancements resulted in a four-level increase in the adjusted offense level for trafficking firearms. The other enhancement was an "other-felony-offense" enhancement, which was recommended on the basis that Defendant used or possessed the firearms in connection with another felony offense and also resulted in a four-level increase in the adjusted offense level. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no prohibition in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines proscribing simultaneous application of the trafficking and other-felony-offense enhancements. View "United States v. Stinson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to an upwardly variant sixty-month term of immurement for illegal possession of a machine gun, holding that Defendant's sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the sentencing court specifically articulated why it believed that Defendant's situation was sufficiently distinctive to warrant a variance; (2) Defendant was not prejudiced when the prosecutor made a gratuitous conjecture without basis in the record; and (3) the relatively modest variance as well within the ambit of the court's discretion. View "United States v. Bruno-Campos" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court denying Petitioner's second 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition, holding that the district court did not err.Petitioner was convicted of using a firearm during a crime of violence (specifically, pharmacy robbery), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). At sentencing, the district court determined that Petitioner qualified for a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because his criminal record included at least three violent felonies, including New Hampshire state court convictions for armed robbery and robbery. After the First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions, the law regarding what qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA and what qualifies as a crime of violence for section 924(c) changed. In light of these changes, Petitioner filed a section 2255 motion arguing that his sentence was improperly enhanced under the ACCA. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner's robbery and armed robbery convictions are ACCA predicate crimes; and (2) pharmacy robbery is a crime of violence under the section 924(c) elements clause. View "Boulanger v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentence for three counts related to distribution of heroin and one count of discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evidence at trial and erroneously concluded that he was eligible for a two-level role enhancement under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly found that law enforcement officers had sufficient probable cause to substantiate a search warrant for Defendant's apartment before a protective sweep began, and Defendant did not establish that the government failed to meet the requirements for applying the inevitable discovery doctrine; and (2) the district court did not clearly err in applying the two-level role enhancement. View "United States v. Soto-Peguero" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession with intent to distribute oxycodone, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant's vehicle was intercepted by the Maine State Police, and Defendant's vehicle was searched. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute oxycodone. On appeal, Defendant argued that the authorities lacked probable cause to search his vehicle and that the district court erred by refusing to suppress statements he made both before and after Miranda warnings were administered. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the authorities had probable cause to search Defendant's car, and therefore, the evidence seized during the vehicle search was admissible; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statements. View "United States v. Simpkins" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence that was seized without a warrant after an automobile stop and drug evidence from a subsequent visual body cavity search, holding that the police had reasonable suspicion to perform the automobile stop and particularized reasonable suspicion to perform the visual body cavity search.On appeal, Defendant argued that his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated because the law enforcement officers lacked reasonable suspicion to perform the initial stop of his vehicle and the requisite level of suspicion to perform the visual body cavity search of his person at the police station. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that the officers (1) had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant's vehicle; and (2) had particularized reasonable suspicion to conduct the visual body cavity search. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law