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

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed in connection with Appellant’s convictions, holding that the district court’s application of a four-level leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(a) was proper and that the sentence was substantively reasonable.Appellant pleaded guilty to leading a large drug distribution conspiracy in Puerto Rico housing projects over a five-year period and to using and carrying a firearm in connection with that drug offense. At sentencing, the district court calculated a higher offense level than the plea agreement and imposed a longer total sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in assigning Appellant a four-level leadership enhancement; and (2) Appellant’s 228-month federal sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Morales-De Jesus" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentences imposed in connection with his convictions for possession ammunition as a convicted felon (the felon in possession case) and for possessing a machine gun (the machine gun case), holding that the sentences were both procedurally and substantively reasonable.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant’s procedural challenges failed; (2) Defendant’s challenges to the calculation of his criminal history category in both cases failed; and (3) neither Defendant’s high-end guidelines sentence in the machine gun case nor his upwardly variant sentence in the felon in possession case was substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Caballero-Vazquez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of Defendants’ motions brought under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct their sentences, holding (1) the Rhode Island offense of assault with a dangerous weapon (A/BDW) does not constitute a violent felony under Armed Career Criminals Act’s (ACCA) force clause; and (2) therefore, Defendants no longer have the three predicate convictions necessary to support their original sentences.In their section 2255 motions, Defendants argued that, in light of Johnson v. United States (Johnson II), 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), their convictions for Rhode Island A/BDW, see R.I. Gen. Laws 11-5-2(a), no longer qualified as predicate convictions triggering the ACCA’s mandatory fifteen-year sentence, see 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The First Circuit agreed, concluding that Rhode Island A/BDW is not categorically a violent felony under the ACCA. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the assault form of Rhode Island A/BDW does not satisfy the force clause, and therefore, Rhode Island A/BDW is not a violent felony under ACCA. View "United States v. Rose" on Justia Law

Although the district court did not err in its application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines in this case, the First Circuit exercised its discretion under United States v. Godin (Godin II), 522 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2008), and United States v. Ahrendt, 560 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2009), to vacate Defendant’s sentence and remand to give the district court the opportunity to consider the United States Sentencing Commission’s current policy position on who qualifies as a career offender.Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of federal armed robbery. At the sentencing hearing, the district court applied the career offender enhancement in the Guidelines, increasing Appellant’s guideline sentencing range to 188-235 months’ imprisonment. The court ultimately varied downward and sentenced Appellant to 132 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant asked the First Circuit to vacate his sentence in light of a recently enacted amendment to the Guidelines. The First Circuit vacated Appellant’s sentence, holding a remand for resentencing was proper to allow the district court the opportunity to consider the Sentencing Commission’s updated views. View "United States v. Frates" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that the district court did not err in refusing to order a pretrial hearing to test the sufficiency of probable cause allegations supporting an arrest warrant and did not err in classifying Defendant as an armed career criminal and sentencing him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e).Defendant entered a guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Classifying Defendant as an armed career criminal, the court sentenced him to a fifteen-year term of immurement. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court appropriately denied Defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing; and (2) there was no sentencing error. View "United States v. Barbosa" on Justia Law

The district court’s decision to grant the jury’s oral request, made during deliberations, for a dictionary was improper, but under the circumstances of this case, the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for a new trial.Appellant was found guilty of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and substantive mail fraud, based upon his certification of false injury claims submitted to the American Family Life Insurance Company. On appeal, Appellant argued that the judge erred in denying his motion for a new trial where the jury was exposed to material not properly offered during trial. The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court, holding (1) the judge’s decision to grant the jury’s request, over Defendant’s objection and with no discussion on the record, to use the dictionary was error; but (2) the trial judge took thorough, effective action to investigate the impact of the error and properly concluded that Appellant suffered no prejudice. View "United States v. Pagan-Romero" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction for social security fraud stemming from his fraudulent use of a social security number not his own, holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motions for a judgment of acquittal, filed at the close of the government’s case-in-chief and again after the jury returned its verdict. Specifically, Defendant argued that 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(7)(B) required his acquittal. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that both the language and purpose of the statute fit perfectly Defendant’s conduct and his intent. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that neither the jury nor the district judge was confused by the statutory language, and Defendant was properly convicted under the statute. View "United States v. Acosta-Joaquin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the convictions of Angel Gabriel Fernandez-Jorge, Brian Perez-Torres, Jose A. De La Cruz-Vazquez, Edwin Otero-Díaz, Isaias Mendoza-Ortega, Edwin Otero-Marquez, and Rafael Martinez-Trinidad stemming from a shootout that took place in front of a public housing project in Humacao, Puerto Rico.The Court held (1) sufficient evidence supported Defendants’ convictions for possession of a firearm in a school one; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support Fernandez-Jorge’s conviction for possession of a firearm in a school zone; (3) the district court erred in instructing the jury on aiding and abetting liability, which required Defendant’s convictions for possession of a firearm in a school zone to be vacated; and (4) there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions of Mendoza-Ortega and Otero-Marquez for possession of a firearm as convicted felons. View "United States v. Fernandez-Jorge" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentenced imposed after Defendant pleaded guilty to both producing and possessing child pornography, holding that Defendant’s claims of error failed.After Defendant pleaded guilty, the district court sentenced him to 264 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by ten years of supervised release. Defendant appealed, seeking resentencing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the imposition of the supervised release condition restricting Defendant’s possession and use of internet-capable electronics was not clearly or obvious error; (2) Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable; and (3) the contention made in Defendant’s sealed brief was without merit. View "United States v. Aquino-Florenciani" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction for importation of controlled substances, possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy, holding that by entering an unconditional guilty plea, Defendant forfeited his claim that the district erred in denying his motion to suppress.Defendant pleaded guilty unconditionally after the start of trial. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain incriminating statements. The First Circuit held that by pleading guilty at trial, Defendant waived his right to challenge the denial of a motion to suppress filed on the eve of trial. View "United States v. Tineo-Gonzalez" on Justia Law