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

In this sentencing appeal brought by the United States the First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that Defendant's prior Maine drug trafficking conviction properly qualified as a "controlled substance offense" under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.The district court essentially adopted the reasoning of another Maine federal judge in another case and held that, as a matter of law, Defendant's prior Maine drug trafficking conviction did not qualify as a predicate controlled substance offense under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a). The First Circuit disagreed, holding that Defendant's prior conviction properly qualified as a "controlled substance offense." View "United States v. Mohamed" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for transporting child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(1), holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress and imposing as a special condition of Defendant's supervised release that Defendant submit to periodic polygraph tests.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in concluding that the government did not violate the Fourth Amendment in obtaining and then reviewing "specific IP addresses" associated with Defendant's account with Kik, a smartphone messaging application, as well as the "specific dates and times associated with each instance of internet access accomplished from those IP addresses." The First Circuit held (1) Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information that the government acquired from Kik without a warrant; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in including periodic polygraph testing as a special condition of Defendant's supervised release. View "United States v. Hood" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court ordering Appellant to pay mandatory restitution in connection with his conviction of crimes arising from a conspiracy to steer telecommunications contracts with the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico to a company controlled by a co-conspirator through a rigged bidding process, holding that there was no error in the district court's restitution calculation.The district court ordered Appellant to pay mandatory restitution of $408,208.42 pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A) & (B). Because Appellant did not object to the restitution amount at sentencing the First Circuit reviewed the amount for plain error. The Court then affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in calculating the restitution amount. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Calderon" on Justia Law

In this consolidated appeal, the First Circuit held that the district court did not err in concluding that the court that issued a wiretap warrant could have found the facts in the application to be at least minimally adequate to support the issuance of the warrant, thus affirming the judgments below.A federal grand jury handed up an indictment charging all four defendants in this consolidated appeal with conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine and distribution and possession with intent to distribute heroin and/or cocaine. The four defendants eventually pleaded guilty to all charges. On appeal, the defendants challenged the district court's ruling on the motion to suppress wiretap evidence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the wiretap application, read in tandem with its supporting affidavit, was more than minimally adequate to support the wiretap authorization. View "United States v. Santana-Dones" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of seventy-one months' incarceration plus three years of supervised release in connection with his conviction for one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant pleaded guilty to the offense without a plea agreement. The district court accepted the straight plea. The district court determined that a sentence at the higher end of the guideline range was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, and imposed the seventy-one-month incarcerate term and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Defendant asserted procedural and substantive error. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no reversible procedural error in sentencing, and Defendant's claim of substantive error in his sentencing similarly failed. View "United States v. Ortiz-Mercado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the decision of the district court granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment against them for failing to satisfy the "obtaining of property" element of Hobbs Act extortion, holding that the "obtaining of property" element was satisfied in this case.Defendants were two officials of the City of Boston, Massachusetts, who allegedly threatened to withhold permits from a production company that need the permits to hold a music festival unless the company agreed to hire works from a specific union to work at the event. Defendants were indicted for Hobbs act extortion and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to show, as it interpreted "obtaining of property" in the Hobbs Act extortion provision to require, that Defendants received a personal benefit from the transfer of wages and benefits to the union workers that Defendants allegedly directed the production company to make. The First Circuit vacated the order of dismissal, holding that the "obtaining of property" element may be satisfied by evidence showing that Defendants induced the victim's consent to transfer property to third parties that Defendants identified, even where Defendants did not incur any personal benefit from the transfer. View "United States v. Brissette" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of ten counts of mail fraud and one count of embezzlement from an organization receiving federal-program benefits, holding that the district court did not err by improperly restricting cross examination of the government's principal witness.During trial, the government presented evidence that Defendant, who was a police lieutenant, submitted fraudulent detail and overtime timesheets, which double counted his work time. The government's principal witness was the executive officer of the police department. The trial court prevented Defendant from asking this witness whether any other police officers faced disciplinary action On appeal, Defendant challenged the court's decision to prevent Defendant from asking whether any other police officers faced disciplinary action for violating the Department's policy on overlapping shifts. Defendant also claimed that the government's closing argument represented prosecutorial misconduct warranting a new trial. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that no prejudicial error occurred in the proceedings below. View "United States v. Corliss" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for violating conditions of supervised release related to an earlier conviction for possessing a machine gun, holding that Defendant's variant sentence for violating his conditions of supervised release was not unlawful.In 2012, Defendant pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a machine gun. In 2016, more than halfway through his supervised release term, Defendant pled guilty to being a felon-in-possession of a firearm and ammunition and illegal possession of a machine gun. The district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months' imprisonment for the new criminal conduct and a consecutive twenty-four-month sentence for violating conditions of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) an appellate waiver provision in Defendant's plea agreement barred this Court from reviewing the sentence imposed on the new charges; and (2) as to Defendant's revocation sentence, the sentence was not an abuse of discretion. View "United States v. Cruz-Olavarria" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed Defendant's conviction for knowingly possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B), holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant, as opposed to other people, downloaded the pornography.Law enforcement officers discovered that someone using an IP address registered to Defendant at a New Hampshire residence downloaded child pornography from a peer-to-peer file-sharing network and that two people in addition to Defendant received mail at that residence. While executing a search warrant, officers found Defendant's laptop computer, which was not password-protected and contained child pornography. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the government supported its case with insufficient evidence. View "United States v. Pothier" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity, holding that the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress statements obtained from him during an interrogation and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court's refusal to suppress his statements made during the interrogation after he received Miranda warnings, arguing that his mental capacity impeded his ability to waive his rights. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly found that Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. View "United States v. Rang" on Justia Law