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

The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to possessing a firearm despite his status as a felon, holding that Defendant’s prior Puerto-Rico law conviction was not a “controlled substance offense” for federal-sentencing purposes.After concluding that Defendant’s prior Puerto-Rico law conviction amounted to a “controlled substance offense” under the guidelines, the court increased Defendant’s base offense level and sentenced him to thirty-four months in prison. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the government in this case failed to meet its burden of showing precisely what Defendant pled to with regard to his Puerto Rico drug offense, which required the Court to vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez-Benitez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the district court’s order granting Appellants’ motion to intervene in an ongoing criminal trial but otherwise denying in substantial part Appellants’ motion to unseal requested information regarding the names and addresses of the jurors in the criminal case as soon as possible after the jury’s verdict, holding that precedent requires post-verdict disclosure of juror names and addresses.Appellants were the owners of WBUR, a public radio station in Boston, Massachusetts. A week before trial ended, WBUR filed its motion both to intervene in the criminal case and to obtain information disclosing, post-verdict, juror names and addresses. The district court issued an order allowing intervention but denying WBUR’s motion regarding the disclosure of juror names and addresses. The First Circuit held that In re Globe Newspaper Co., 920 F.2d 88 (1st Cir. 1990), holds that, absent a district court having made the requisite particularized findings to justify either nondisclosure or a delay in disclosure, juror addresses may not be withheld post-verdict and that the disclosure of the requested juror information may not be delayed until after sentencing. View "United States v. Chin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the convictions of Defendants Juan Bravo-Fernandez and Hector Martinez-Maldonado (Martinez) for federal program bribery, holding that the government did not meet its burden of establishing that the entity Martinez represented as an agent received at least $10,000 in federal “benefits” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 666.In this appeal, the third time this case was before the First Circuit, Defendants argued that evidence stipulated to early in the proceedings was insufficient to convict them of federal program bribery because the government did not introduce evidence sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional element under section 666(b) that the government entity received “benefits in excess of $10,00 under a Federal program.” The First Circuit agreed, holding that the government failed to meet its burden of establishing that the entity Martinez represented as an agent received the amount of benefits required under section 666(b). View "United States v. Bravo-Fernandez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court sentencing Defendant to forty-six months’ imprisonment in connection with Defendant’s plea of guilty to a charge of possessing a machine gun, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally flawed nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant’s guilty plea placed him in a federal guideline sentencing range (GSR) of twenty-four to thirty months’ imprisonment. After considering the facts of Defendant’s offense as well as other sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), the district court determined that a sentence above the GSR was appropriate and sentenced Defendant to forty-six months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the forty-six-month variant incarceration was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Contreras-Delgado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court in connection with Defendant’s conviction of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, holding that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.Defendant received a guideline sentence of forty-six months of imprisonment for his conviction. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion by applying a six-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2S1.1(b)(1) when it was not proven that he knew his crime involved drug trafficking proceeds. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was ample evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant knew that laundered funds were drug-trafficking proceeds; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Calderon-Lozano" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant on twelve federal criminal counts, including conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, Defendant’s lengthy prison sentence, and the $2.25 million money judgment forfeiture entered by the district court, holding that Defendant’s arguments on appeal were unavailing.Specifically, the Court held that the district court (1) did not manifestly abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 on the basis of what Defendant claimed was newly discovered evidence; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in ordering the forfeiture of a gold ring in partial satisfaction of the previously ordered money judgment forfeiture. View "United States v. Ponzo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions of 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 Defendant’s challenges to his convictions failed but that the district court erred in denying Defendant a minor participant reduction under section 3B1.2(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines.Specifically, the Court held (1) in light of prior precedent concerning Defendant’s assertion about the content of international law, the Court must reject Defendant’s constitutional contention regarding the scope of Congress’s power to criminalize his conduct that he argued lacked any nexus to the United States; and (2) because Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which added five factors to the application note, 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 affirmed the dismissal of Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus relief as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1), holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief based on his two tolling theories.As grounds for reconsideration of the dismissal of his habeas petition, Petitioner argued (1) the statute of limitations should be statutorily tolled during the pendency of his motion to stay the execution of his sentence because that motion constituted an application for collateral review under section 2244(d)(2); and (2) the circumstances surrounding his conviction justified equitable tolling of the time between the finality of his Massachusetts convictions and the filing of his habeas petition. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) Petitioner’s motion to stay the execution of his sentence was not a request for collateral review and therefore did not toll the one-year statute of limitations; and (2) there was no reason to disrupt the district court’s discretionary ruling on equitable tolling. View "Blue v. Medeiros" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence without prejudice to his right to raise his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a collateral proceeding brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, holding that Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim ought not to be aired for the first time on direct appeal.Defendant pleaded guilty to violating the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. 2423(a) and was sentenced to a 327-month term of immurement. On appeal, Defendant argued for the first time that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that this case did not qualify for an exception to the general rule that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must first be raised in the district court. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s 109-month sentence for possession of child pornography, holding that the government did not violate the plea agreement in this case and that the district court did not err in applying an enhancement for knowingly distributing child pornography.Defendant entered a guilty plea to the charge of possession of child pornography. The district court sentenced Defendant to a 109-month term of immurement. On appeal, Defendant argued that the government breached the terms of the plea agreement by failing to advocate for the bargained-for sentence and that the district court’s finding that he knowingly distributed child pornography was in error. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it included a two-level enhancement for knowing distribution in its calculation of the guideline sentencing range; and (2) there was no breach of the plea agreement. View "United States v. Montanez-Quinones" on Justia Law