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

The First Circuit affirmed the convictions of Juan Taco-Baez (Tanco), Jose Cepeda-martinez (Cepeda), and Peter Rosario-Serrano (Rosario) with the exception of of Cepeda's conviction on one of the counts, affirmed Baez's sentence, but vacated and remanded Cepeda's sentence, holding that Cepeda's conviction for possession of firearms and ammunition by an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance was not supported by sufficient evidence (Count One).The three co-defendants in this case were indicted as co-defendants on several federal firearms charges. All three defendants challenged certain aspects of their convictions, and Tanco and Cepeda challenged their sentences for certain convictions. The First Circuit rejected each co-defendant's challenge to his conviction exception for Cepeda's challenge to his conviction on Count One, which the Court held was not supported by sufficient evidence. The Court then affirmed Tanco's sentence but vacated and remanded Cepeda's sentence, holding that procedural errors in sentencing were not harmless. View "United States v. Tanco-Baez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence he received after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute furanyl fentanyl and cocaine base and for the distribution of furanyl fentanyl, holding that the district court erred in concluding that he was a career offender under the 2016 version of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual based on his 2000 New York state law robbery conviction.At issue on appeal was whether "robbery" in the enumerated offense clause of the "crime of violence" definition in the Guidelines encompasses the variant of robbery under New York law for which Defendant was convicted in 2000. The First Circuit held that the government did not meet its burden of establishing that Defendant's prior conviction qualified as a predicate offense for sentencing enhancement purposes and that the case must be remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Rabb" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus alleging a violation of his right to confrontation and a violation of due process, holding that the district court, given the confines of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254, correctly determined that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.Petitioner appealed his second-degree murder conviction to the Massachusetts Appeals Court (MAC), but the appeal was unavailing. Petitioner later sought a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court, arguing violations of his right to confrontation, based on the admission of a videotaped deposition testimony premised on an erroneous unavailability determination, and of due process, based on what he characterized as prejudicial misstatements of evidence during closing arguments. The district court dismissed the petition. The First Circuit affirmed based on the strictures of AEDPA, holding (1) the district court correctly concluded that the MAC reasonably determined that the constitutional violation in admitting the deposition testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the MAC's determination that the prosecutor's misstatements were not prejudicial was not contrary to clearly established federal law, nor did the misstatements violate Petitioner's right to due process. View "Dorisca v. Marchilli" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the forfeiture order entered by the district court in the amount of over $14 million, the sum Defendant obtained from some of his clients through a fraudulent scheme for which he was convicted of nineteen counts of mail and wire fraud, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the forfeiture order when it did; (2) the sum forfeited was not in error; (3) the forfeiture order did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment; and (4) the imposition of the forfeiture order by the district court did not violate his right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment. View "United States v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions of eleven offenses arising from a three-day carjacking spree, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Defendant was convicted of four counts of carjacking, one of which resulted in the death of a person, four counts of possessing a firearm in furtherance of those carjackings, two counts of possessing a stolen firearm, and one count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish plain error as to the district court's decisions regarding his competency during the first trial; (2) any error in the admission of a forensic expert's testimony regarding DNA evidence presented at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (4) Defendant failed to establish plain error regarding the jury instructions; and (5) an officer's testimony in the second trial did not violate Defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. View "United States v. Velazquez-Aponte" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting and sentencing Defendant of a variety of offenses, including conspiring to possess heroin with intent to distribute and possessing and distributing heroin, holding that nothing in the proceedings below rose to the level of reversible error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the judge erred by denying a motion for a mistrial based on the judge's allowing a government witness to retake the stand and recant some trial testimony and a second motion for a mistrial based on his codefendant supposedly offering a defense that was prejudicially antagonistic to his own. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the denial of Defendant's mistrial motions survived abuse-of-discretion scrutiny; and (2) contrary to Defendant's argument on appeal, the sentence was neither implausible or indefensible. View "United States v. Chisholm" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentence of fifteen years' imprisonment, holding that the district court did not commit plain error convicting Defendant and properly sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(A)(ii).On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court committed plain error because the government did not charge him with, and he did not plead guilty to, knowing the facts that made him a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to demonstrate that it was reasonably probable that he would not have pled guilty had the district court informed him that the government was required to prove that he knew when he possessed the gun that he had previously been convicted of an offense by more than one year in prison; and (2) selling a controlled substance under New Hampshire law, N.H. Rev. Stat. 318-B:2(I), is a "serious drug offense" as defined under the ACCA and therefore can be a predicate act for purposes of triggering the ACCA's mandatory minimum sentence. View "United States v. Burghardt" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of two counts of making false statements and one count of theft of government property, holding that sufficient evidence supported Defendant's convictions and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or in its response to the jury's request for a transcript.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court (1) erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, (2) abused its discretion in admitting into evidence photographs taken from a Facebook page under the name of Defendant's ex-wife, and (3) abused its discretion by declining to provide the jury with the transcript of certain witness testimony and did not inform the jury that it could request a readback of the testimony. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence; (2) the Facebook photos were properly admitted despite an authentication objection; and (3) the district court did not err in its response to the jury's request for a transcript. View "United States v. Vazquez-Soto" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.The sentencing calculations and recommendations in Defendant's plea agreement were not binding on the district court. Defendant was advised as much at his change of plea hearing. On appeal, Defendant argued that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary because the district court did not inform him of the possibility of a stolen firearm enhancement and that the district court incorrectly calculated his criminal history category. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the district court's acceptance of the plea or in the district court's application of the stolen firearm enhancement; and (2) any error in the district court's calculation of Defendant's criminal history category was harmless. View "United States v. Cortes-Maldonado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant for disclosure of social security numbers and aggravated identity theft, holding that the district court did not commit clear or obvious error in refusing to ask prospective jurors about racial bias.On appeal, Defendant argued that there was a reasonable possibility that racial bias might have affected the jury because she requested that the district court ask the prospective jurors as a group a question during voir dire about whether any of them harbored racial bias and the district court denied that request. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant objection to the district court's failure to ask a question about racial bias during voir dire was at least forfeited; and (2) it was not clear or obvious error for the district court to refuse to ask such a question. View "United States v. Cezaire" on Justia Law