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

The First Circuit affirmed the 121-month sentence imposed in connection with Defendant's plea of guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, holding that the district court correctly calculated Defendant’s Guidelines sentencing range (GSR).On appeal, Defendant raised two procedural challenges to the district court’s calculation of his GSR. After reviewing the record, which showed that Defendant maintained a false identity throughout his criminal proceedings, the First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court imposed a plainly warranted sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice and did not err in denying Defendant a credit for acceptance of responsibility. View "United States v. Perez-Crisostomo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed in connection with the district court’s revocation of Defendant’s supervised release, holding that Defendant’s sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and that the sentence was substantively reasonable.After he was released from federal custody following a drug trafficking conviction, Defendant pleaded guilty to felony drug possession in state court. The district court revoked Defendant’s supervised release and imposed a sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment, concluding that Defendant’s conduct violated his conditions of supervised release. On appeal, Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence and argued that because his drug addiction is a disease, sentencing him to a term of imprisonment for manifesting a condition of his disease was cruel and unusual punishment. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) it is not “clear or obvious” that the practice of incarcerating defendants for drug use and possession is unconstitutional; and (2) Defendant’s two-year sentence is not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Sirois" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence for participating in a conspiracy to bribe an agent of an organization receiving federal funds and of receiving a bribe, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the trial court proceedings.Defendant, a former Puerto Rico Superior Court Judge, was found guilty of both counts by a jury. Defendant was sentenced to sixty months of imprisonment for one count and 120 months of imprisonment for the other count, to be served concurrently. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence supporting Defendant’s convictions; (2) Defendant did not demonstrate that any alleged error in the government’s opening statement and closing argument or in the admission of certain testimony affected his substantial rights or that they impaired the fairness, integrity, or the public reputation of the judicial proceedings; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in upholding a witness’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege; and (4) any claimed sentencing error would be harmless. View "United States v. Acevedo-Hernandez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition, holding that Appellant’s three prior convictions were Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) predicates, and therefore, Appellant’s sentence as an armed career criminal was proper.On appeal, Appellant argued that his sentence under the ACCA was unconstitutional under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), Supreme Court precedent decided after his earlier appeal from his conviction was rejected. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that three of Appellant’s convictions qualified as violent felonies under the ACCA’s force clause, and therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Appellant’s section 2255 petition. View "Lassend v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s 180-month sentence for conspiracy to possess five kilograms or more of cocaine with intent to distribute, holding that the district court’s failure to impose a downward departure or downward variance was not an abuse of discretion and that Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable.After Defendant pleaded guilty to the offense, he sought a downward departure under U.S.S.G. 5H1.4 - as well as a downward variance - arguing that his life would be shortened by a guidelines sentence since prison facilities would be unable to address fully his medical needs. The court imposed a sentence within the guidelines range. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding (1) Defendant’s health condition did not warrant a downward departure; (2) Defendant’s arguments for a downward variance were properly rejected by the district court; and (3) Defendant’s sentence was both “plausibly reasoned and within the universe of reasonable sentences.” View "United States v. Madera-Rivera" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s 120-month prison sentence, holding that the district court did not err in imposing a five-level enhancement for “engag[ing] in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor,” U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(5), and a two-level enhancement for “knowingly engag[ing] in [the] distribution” of child pornography, U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(F).Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding (1) the district court properly increased Defendant’s offense level by five levels after finding the requisite pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor; and (2) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant knowingly engaged in the distribution of child pornography, which resulted in a two-level enhancement. View "United States v. Cates" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed upon Defendant in connection with his plea of guilty to possessing a firearm while subject to a qualifying court order, holding that Defendant failed to show that the district court erred in setting forth his sentence.The district court sentenced Defendant to thirty-three months’ imprisonment, a term at the top of, but still within, the range set by a final total offense level of twelve and criminal history category of V. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that Defendant’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Tosi" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the presentencing report erroneously applied an enhancement, but for which his United States Sentencing Guidelines range would have been lower.Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful re-entry into the United States. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of forty-two months in prison. On appeal, Defendant claimed for the first time that the district court’s application of a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(2)(D) was in error. Without the enhancement, Defendant’s Guidelines range would be thirty to thirty-seven months instead of forty-six to fifty-seven months. The First Circuit vacated the sentence, holding (1) application of the section 2L1.2(b)(2)(D) enhancement was a clear and obvious error that affected Defendant’s substantial rights; and (2) Defendant’s Guidelines range was more than a year higher than it should have been, and resentencing was clearly warranted. View "United States v. Romero" on Justia Law

The First Circuit summarily affirmed Defendant’s 240-month incarcerative sentence, holding that the district court did not hold Defendant responsible for an incorrect drug quantity or improperly count two prior convictions when calculating Defendant’s criminal history score.Defendant entered a guilty plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute heroin, conspiracy to possess stolen firearms, and attempted witness tampering. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err as a matter of law in including in its calculation drugs that Defendant personally consumed; and (2) the sentencing court did not miscalculate Defendant’s criminal history score, thus placing him into certain criminal history category III. View "United States v. Pinkham" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s conviction for wire fraud and his sentence, holding (1) Congress did not impliedly repeal the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1343, as to prosecutions that also fall within the reach of the 1938 Wheeler-Lea Amendment to the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C. 52-57; and (2) the remaining arguments raised by Appellant on appeal were without merit.Appellant pled guilty to wire fraud for selling non-prescription drug products via an online business. Appellant created and operated more than 1,500 websites containing altered clinical studies, fabricated testimonials, and false indicia of origin to induce customers to purchase his products. Appellant was sentenced to seventy-two months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant argued that prosecutions such as his must be pursued exclusively by the Federal Trade Commission as false advertising cases. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) Appellant’s case was correctly pursued by the Department of Justice as a wire fraud case; (2) the district court correctly rejected Defendant’s defense as to intent to defraud; (3) the district court’s Guidelines calculation as to the loss amount was correct; and (4) Appellant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Arif" on Justia Law