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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for bulk-cash smuggling and currency structuring, holding that no reversible error occurred during the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court’s admission into evidence of certain statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule was prejudicial; (2) the district judge did not err in instructing the jury; (3) Defendant waived his claim that the district judge erred by not granting his motion for acquittal on the structuring count; and (4) the prosecutor did not make prejudicial comments in closing arguments or at sentencing. View "United States v. Freitas" on Justia Law

At issue was whether a sentencing court may assess criminal history points for a prison sentence imposed following revocation of probation when the revocation-triggering conduct also constitutes the gravamen of the federal offense of conviction.In 2013, Defendant was convicted in a Puerto Rico court of aggravated illegal appropriation and illegal possession of a firearm. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive three-year terms of probation. In 2016, a federal grand jury charged Appellant with being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition. Appellant pleaded guilty. Before Appellant’s federal sentencing, a Puerto Rico court revoked Appellant’s terms of probation for the 2013 offenses and sentenced him instead to two consecutive three-year prison terms. The revocation was triggered by the same unlawful weapons possession that formed the basis of Appellant’s federal conviction. The district court factored the revocation sentence into Appellant’s criminal history score and proceeded to impose an upwardly variant sentence of forty-eight months’ imprisonment to be served consecutively to the revocation sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Rivera-Berrios" on Justia Law

After addressing how a district court should apply the Sentencing Commission’s revised commentary regarding mitigating role adjustments the First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence to eighty-seven months of imprisonment, holding that Defendant’s sentence was neither procedurally flawed nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant pled guilty to several drug-related offenses. After determining that Defendant was not entitled to a minor participant reduction, the district court imposed concurrent eighty-seven terms of confinement on all four counts of conviction. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in refusing to grant him a minor participant reduction. See U.S.S.G. 3B1.2. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s claim of legal error in the court’s application of section 3B1.2 was without merit, and the district court supportably found that Defendant was not entitled to the minor participant reduction; and (2) the challenged sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Arias-Mercedes" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, holding that there was no error in the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to Defendants on all of Plaintiff’s claims.Plaintiff’s lawsuit stemmed from the covert installment of screenshot-capturing software on Plaintiff’s work computer, which led to his arrest and plea of nolo contendere to one count of possession of child pornography. Plaintiff brought his claims against the individuals who participated in the events leading up to and following his arrest. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "Boudreau v. Lussier" on Justia Law

After addressing the proper standard for evaluating the enforceability of an appellate waiver the First Circuit dismissed Appellant’s appeal challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence, holding that Appellant’s waiver of appeal must be enforced.Appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to knowingly possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment within the plea agreement’s appellate waiver range. On appeal, Appellant argued that his plea agreement’s appellate waiver was unenforceable under the tripartite framework of United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14, (1st Cir. 2001), and that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The government urged the First Circuit to dismiss the appeal based on the plain-error analysis set forth in United States v. Borrero-Acevedo, 533 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2008). The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding (1) any inconsistency between Teeter and Borrero-Acevedo need not be reconciled in this case; and (2) even under the more defendant-friendly Teeter approach, Defendant’s waiver of appeal was enforceable. View "United States v. Villodas-Rosario" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions and the order of restitution imposed by the trial court but vacated the sentence of incarceration and remanded for resentencing, holding that the trial judge erred when it used the 2014 Guidelines Manual rather than the 2015 Guidelines manual at the time of sentencing and that the trial judge’s clear error affected Defendant’s substantial rights.The Court held (1) the government presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions for bankruptcy fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft; (2) the bankruptcy fraud theory the government argued in its closing did not constitute a constructive amendment to Defendant’s indictment nor a prejudicial variance; (3) the trial judge properly instructed the jury about bankruptcy fraud and aggravated identity theft; (4) the district judge used the incorrect version of the United States Sentencing Commission’s Guidelines Manual, which affected both the calculation of the applicable guidelines sentencing range and the ultimate imposition of the sentence of incarceration; and (5) the district court did not commit any errors when it ordered restitution to the clerk of court for the district court. View "United States v. Valdes-Ayala" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed in connection with Defendant’s plea of guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and one count of possession of a machine gun, holding that Defendant’s sixty-six-month sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.The district court imposed an above guideline sentence of sixty-six months imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently, and three years of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s sentence was procedurally reasonable; and (2) the sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Sosa-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence for wire fraud and theft in connection with health care, holding that Defendant’s upwardly variant sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.Defendant pled guilty to one count of theft in connection with health care and one count of wire fraud. The district court imposed an upwardly variant sentence of sixty months’ imprisonment on each count of conviction, to run concurrently and to be followed by three years of supervised release. The court also ordered Defendant to forfeit $394,300 and to pay $590,296 in restitution to the victim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant’s sentence was neither procedurally unreasonable nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Gierbolini-Rivera" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment followed by lifetime supervised release imposed in connection with Defendant’s plea of guilty to possession of child pornography, holding that Defendant’s sentence was without procedural error and was substantively reasonable.After noting that even assuming, favorably to Defendant that the abuse of discretion standard applied, the First Circuit held that Defendant failed to establish any abuse of discretion on appeal. Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court adequately explained why it imposed a condition of lifetime supervised release; (2) Defendant’s within-guidelines sentence of lifetime supervised release was substantively reasonable; and (3) Defendant’s ten-year term of imprisonment was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Harrison" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentenced imposed in connection with Defendant’s guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute, holding that Defendant’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable and that there was no error in the sentence.After considering a ten-year sentence to protect the public from “someone who is a career criminal,” the court sentenced Defendant to seventy-eight months’ imprisonment, a sentence significantly below Defendant’s guidelines sentencing range as a career offender. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s claim that the trial court wrongly denied him a minimal participant reduction was unavailing because a minimal participant designation would not have helped him; (2) Defendant qualified as a career offender; and (3) the below-guidelines sentence of seventy-eight months was not unreasonable. View "United States v. Reid" on Justia Law