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

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

The First Circuit affirmed the holding of the district court that Defendant had twice violated the conditions of his supervised release and sentencing Defendant to an eighteen-month term of immurement, to be followed by a new four-year term of supervised release, holding that any error was harmless and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the district court's findings.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the district court erred by relying on previously excluded evidence to find that Defendant violated a condition of his supervised release; and (2) the district court had insufficient evidence to find a second violation. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion when it relied upon previously excluded hearsay statements in formulating its decision, but the error was harmless; and (2) the evidence supporting the district court's two findings was sufficient. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to suppress, which Defendant filed before he was convicted of legal reentry after removal from the United States, holding that the district court did not err in not dismissing Defendant's indictment for delay in presentment or in not suppressing information that law enforcement had gathered about Defendant, including his identity.Defendant was a passenger in a van that was stopped for seatbelt violations. A Maine State Trooper who conducted the stop contacted an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer for help identifying the passengers, several of whom did not appear to speak English. When he was asked for his identification, Defendant produced a consular ID card. ICE officers ran the card through ICE databases and determined that Defendant was suspected of illegal reentry. Defendant was subsequently convicted of illegally entering the United States after removal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant made his initial appearance just as the criminal process was initiated, there was no unnecessary delay before his initial appearance and so no violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a); and (2) the district court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Garcia-Zavala" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of conspiracy to deprive a person of civil rights and sentence of eighty-seven months in prison, holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant's conviction and that there was no other reversible error.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence; (2) the district court properly admitted testimony of two government witnesses under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); (3) the district court did not violate Defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment's Compulsory Process Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's second motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (5) Defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable. View "United States v. Martinez-Mercado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's request to challenge the reliability of his victim's testimony by cross-examining the victim at Defendant's resentencing hearing, holding that the district court did not violate Defendant's procedural due process rights by disallowing cross-examination of the victim at Defendant's resentencing.Defendant pleaded guilty to kidnapping for ransom. The First Circuit remanded the case for resentencing. On remand, the district court judge sentenced Defendant to eight months less than his previous sentence. On appeal, Defendant argued that his procedural due process rights were violated when the judge denied him the opportunity to contest misinformation about his treatment of the victim during the abduction by cross-examining the victim, which led to the imposition of a sentence based on inaccurate information. The First Circuit disagreed and affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's request to cross-examine the victim at Defendant's resentencing hearing. View "United States v. Berrios-Miranda" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to forty-eight months in prison for unlawfully possessing a firearm, holding that Defendant's variant sentence was not procedurally unreasonable.The guideline range specified by the presentence report was thirty to thirty-seven months. The district court ultimately imposed a forty-eight-month variant sentence. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court failed adequately to explain its reasons for imposing an above-guideline sentence, that a variant sentence was not supported by the record, and that the district court relied on erroneous facts. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court offered a plausible and coherent rationale for its eleven-month variance; and (2) the district court did not rely on erroneous facts in imposing Defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Rivera-Santiago" on Justia Law