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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute oxycodone, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court improperly assigned points for a previous sentence that should have been excluded as conduct that was “part of the instant offense” under Section 4A1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines - namely, Defendant’s 2013 conviction in state court for possession with intent to sell or dispense. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that the district court did not err in treating the 2013 conviction as a prior sentence for purposes of determining Defendant’s criminal history category. View "United States v. Vicente" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and affirmed Defendant’s conviction of one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, holding (1) there was no basis on which to grant Defendant’s motion to suppress; and (2) there was no error in Defendant’s conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the handgun at issue because it was discovered during an unconstitutional search of his vehicle. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) the search of Defendant’s vehicle was not unconstitutional, and therefore, the weapon was not the fruit of an unlawful search and did not require suppression; and (2) Defendant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence of his knowing and intentional possession of the weapon. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence to a 188-month term of immurement, holding that Defendant waived his “career offender” argument and made no showing sufficient to excuse that waiver.Defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin and detectable quantities of cocaine hydrochloride and fentanyl. During sentencing, Defendant repeatedly agreed that he should be sentenced as a career offender. The district court found Defendant to be a career offender and imposed a bottom-of-the-range term of immurement. Defendant appealed, assigning error to the district court’s treatment of him as a career offender. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the equities preponderated heavily in favor of enforcing Defendant’s waiver of his argument against career offender status. View "United States v. Orsini" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence of thirty months’ imprisonment for possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to knowingly and unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition while being an unlawful drug user. Defendant agreed to a waiver-of-appeal provision. Defendant then brought this appeal challenging his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that this Court need not rely on the appeal waiver to dispense with Defendant’s appeal because, even if it did consider the merits of Defendant’s challenges to his sentence, those challenges failed. View "United States v. Mangual-Rosado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a handgun and twenty rounds of ammunition, holding that there was no error in the sentence fashioned by the district court.The district court sentenced Defendant to eighty-six months. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that Defendant’s prior Massachusetts drug distribution and assault with a dangerous weapon conviction qualified as a “crime of violence” under the United States Sentencing Guidelines; and (2) the district court properly applied a sentencing enhancement for possession “in connection with” another felony. View "United States v. Oliveira" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction of one counts of stalking in violation 18 U.S.C. 2216A, holding that Defendant’s constitutional challenge was unsuccessful, there was no error in the district court’s jury instructions, and sufficient evidence supported the conviction.On appeal, Defendant brought a First Amendment challenge to the federal anti-stalking statute, arguing that section 2261A(2)(B) is facially overbroad and a content-based restriction on speech that does not survive strict scrutiny. The First Circuit disagreed as to this issue and the remaining issues Defendant raised on appeal, holding (1) Defendant’s First Amendment challenge to the statute was unavailing; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s request for a unanimity instruction or in giving jury instructions that precisely tracked the statute’s wording; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction. View "United States v. Ackell" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence of sixty months in prison following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and unlawfully possessing a machine gun, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.After entered his guilty plea, the district court varied upward and sentenced Defendant to sixty months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release. The presentence report stipulated a guidelines imprisonment range of thirty to thirty-seven months. On appeal, Defendant claimed that the variant sentence was excessive and thus substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that, given Defendant’s offense conduct and his criminal history, the sentence imposed was substantively reasonable and that the variance was lawfully imposed and adequately explained. View "United States v. Hernandez-Ramos" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed upon Defendant, a convicted fraudster, particularly the restitution order entered pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A, in the amount of $581,880, holding that the district court satisfied the requirements of the MVRA.Defendant pleaded guilty to seven counts of mail fraud and two counts of visa fraud. The government sought a total of $581,880 in restitution on behalf of 368 victims. The district court adopted the government’s calculations and ordered restitution accordingly. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) both the district court and the First Circuit had jurisdiction over the matter; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the order of restitution. View "United States v. Naphaeng" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence of 276 months in prison for conspiracy to commit kidnapping, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally flawed nor substantively unreasonable.After Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit kidnapping, the district court imposed a below-guidelines sentence. On appeal, Defendant challenged the sentence’s procedural and substantive reasonableness. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding (1) the ransom-demand enhancement under section 2A4.1(b)(1) of the guidelines was not plain error; (2) Defendant’s arguments regarding the judge not expressly ruling on his objections to the presentence report’s inclusion of a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement and rejection of a two-level minor-role reduction did not amount to procedural unreasonableness; and (3) Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Romero" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s application seeking permission to file a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate her conviction and sentence for possessing a destructive device during and in relation to and in furtherance of a crime of violence, holding that Petitioner’s application did not meet the requirements for certification of a successive section 2255 motion.Petitioner sought to file this successive motion in 2016 following the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Petitioner then supplemented her motion after Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), was decided. Petitioner hoped to argue in the district court that the rule announced in Johnson and reiterated in Dimaya rendered the definition of “crime of violence” under which she was convicted unconstitutionally void for vagueness. The First Circuit denied the application, holding that Johnson’s rule, reaffirmed in Dimaya, did not extend to Petitioner’s conviction under 924(c)’s residual clause. View "Brown v. United States" on Justia Law