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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of four counts of filing false tax returns and one count of attempting to obstruct the internal-revenue laws and the sentence imposed in connection with the conviction, holding that there was no error or plain error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the trial judge did not commit plain error by admitting for impeachment purposes a false-statement conviction Defendant incurred in 2006; (2) Defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that any error in the jury instructions affected his substantial rights; and (3) the trial judge did not err by imposing a $286,433 restitution amount recommended by the probation officer in her pre-sentence report. View "United States v. Takesian" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed in connection with Defendant's conviction of conspiring to possess and distribute heroin and fentanyl, holding that the district court did not err in adopting the government's estimate of the heroin attributable to Defendant.The district court adopted the district court's estimate and found Defendant responsible for more than one kilogram of heroin. The district court then fixed the guideline sentencing range as fifty-seven to seventy-one months of imprisonment and imposed a sentence of sixty-six months. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court's drug quantity determination. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in adopting the government's estate where that estimate, if anything, understated Defendant's involvement. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the district court's sentence imposed in connection with Defendant's conviction for sexual exploitation of a child, access with intent to view child pornography, and possession of child pornography, holding that the district court erred in applying the 2016 Guidelines Sentencing Manual to two ungrouped, later-committed offenses in calculating the offense level for an offense committed in 2001.Defendant pleaded guilty to all offenses under the same indictment, and the district court sentenced Defendant to a 196-month term of incarceration. The 2016 version of the manual, as compared to the version in effect in 2001, resulted in a high total offense level. Further, the court gave no explanation for why it chose the sentence or for why it would have done so even if it knew it was upwardly variant. The First Circuit remanded the case for resentencing, holding (1) application of the subsequent manual to the prior, ungrouped offense violated the Ex Post Facto Clause; and (2) the district court plainly erred in providing no justification for the resulting upward variance. View "United States v. Mantha" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion and one count of aiding and abetting the same, holding that there was ample and sufficient evidence to support the verdict on both crimes.Defendant and other ostensible members of an organized crime organization tried to extort money from the owner of an interstate towing company through a variety of means. A jury convicted Defendant of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by threats of violence and interference with commerce by threats or violence and aiding and abetting the same. The district court sentenced Defendant to a twenty-month term of imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the evidence was more than sufficient to support the verdict on both crimes. View "United States v. Valentini" on Justia Law

In this case convicting Defendant of multiple offenses stemming from his criminal scheme of purportedly sending clients cyanide so they could commit suicide the First Circuit reversed Defendant's conviction as to count 14 (witness tampering) and affirmed his remaining convictions, holding that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence having great prejudicial effect but little probative value, and the error was not harmless as to count 14.Defendant pleaded guilty to nine fraud-related counts and went to trial on the remaining counts. The jury found Defendant guilty on five of the six tried counts. The First Circuit reversed in part, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant on counts 1 and 14 (the mailing injurious articles and witness tampering counts); (2) with respect to counts 1 and 14 and certain fraud-related counts (counts 5, 7, 12), the district court abused its discretion in admitting highly charged evidence having significant prejudicial effect but scant probative value, but this error was harmless as to most of the tried counts; (3) as to count 14, the error in admitting the evidence at issue was not harmless, requiring a new trial on that count; and (4) the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant. View "United States v. Kilmartin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence, holding that the district court erred in determining that Defendant's sister had either actual or apparent authority to consent to the search.Defendant filed a motion to suppress fentanyl obtained from within closed black garbage bags that were found in his sister's storage unit during a warrantless search. The district court denied the motion to suppress and denied Defendant's subsequent motion for reconsideration. Specifically, the district court concluded that Defendant's sister, who had apparent authority to consent to the search, gave it even if she did not have actual authority to give consent. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the government failed to meet its burden to show that Defendant's sister had either actual or apparent authority to consent to the search of the evidence at issue. View "United States v. Moran" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for insider-trading securities fraud and related conspiracy offenses, holding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions and that the district court did not err in instructing the jury or in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial.Defendant was convicted of eleven counts of inside-trading securities fraud and related conspiracy offenses. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the jury's verdicts rested on sufficient evidence showing that Defendant owed a corporate inside a duty of trust and confidence, and the evidence similarly sufficed to prove Defendant's willful breach of his duty to the corporate insider; (2) the district court's decisions to give or refuse to give certain jury instructions were without error; and (3) the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial. View "United States v. Kanodia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on seven counts related to possession and distribution of methamphetamine and two counts related to possession of a firearm, holding that none of Defendant's claims on appeal required reversal.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court's decision allowing the confidential informant to invoke a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege from testifying was harmless error; (2) the government's failure to provide Defendant with certain telephone records showing communications Defendant had with the confidential informant and an undercover officer did not amount to a Brady violation compelling a new trial; and (3) Defendant's challenges to the government's statements during closing arguments were unavailing. View "United States v. Cascella" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his residence, holding that the fruits of the search of the residence were properly suppressed.The district court found that the warrant affidavit, reformed after a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), did not establish probable cause to search either Defendant's business or his home. The government appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its probable cause determination as to Defendant's residence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the reformed affidavit failed to establish probable cause to search Defendant's residence, and therefore, the fruits of the search of the residence were properly suppressed. View "United States v. Roman" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed in connection with Defendant's conviction of one count of possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, holding that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.At issue was whether the sentencing court erred in its consideration of both the conduct underlying a dismissed charge and a prior controlled substance conviction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not commit plain error in its recitation of procedural facts furnished by Defendant and set forth in the presentence investigation report, notwithstanding that those facts related to a dismissed charge; (2) the district court did not commit procedural error by considering Defendant's prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance in the third degree; and (3) Defendant's thirty-six-month was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Miranda-Diaz" on Justia Law