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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for tampering with a witness by attempting to kill him and making false statements to a federal agent, holding that the trial court did not commit plain error. The Court held (1) the district court did not violate Defendant’s constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury trial when it failed individually to question all prospective jurors about potential racial bias; (2) the government’s fingerprint expert did not make a prejudicial false statement; and (3) the district court did not commit plain error in admitting testimony as to Defendant’s physically abusive treatment of the prostitutes who worked for him. View "United States v. Casanova" on Justia Law

In this appeal from a forfeiture order, the First Circuit held that the district court did not abridge Defendant’s procedural rights and that the district court applied an appropriate yardstick in measuring the proceeds of Defendant’s criminal activity to be forfeited.Defendant, a corrupt politician, was convicted of embezzlement from an organization receiving federal funds. The First Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence but vacated the district court’s forfeiture order. On remand, the district court ordered Defendant to forfeit the “proceeds” of his criminal activity in the amount of $1,382,214. On appeal, Defendant argued, in part, that he had a right to allocate before the district court upon remand and a right to be present when the district court reentered the forfeiture order. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s right to allocate was satisfied at the initial sentencing hearing, and Defendant waived any right to be present that may have existed when the district court re-entered the forfeiture order; and (2) the management fees that formed the basis for the forfeiture award constituted “proceeds” of the offenses of conviction. View "United States v. George" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress drug evidence as having resulted from an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment, holding that the search was constitutional.At issue was whether, after completing a license check that is usual when a car is stopped for a driving offenses, the police had reasonable suspicion that a drug offense was being committed so as to justify a further period of detention while a drug detection dog repeatedly circled Defendant’s car, and whether the added time exceeded the permissible duration for the dog’s investigation. The First Circuit held (1) probable cause justified the search that led to discovery of the drugs; and (2) the approximately three minutes from the beginning of the dog’s reconnaissance to the dog’s response fell within the zone considered reasonable under the Terry rationale. View "United States v. Favreau" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and for being a prohibited person in possession of ammunition and his sentence, subject to a remand for the limited purpose of striking a chid pornography forfeiture order. The Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence of Defendant’s knowing possession of the contraband to support both convictions; (2) Defendant’s arguments that various alleged errors in the proceedings below required vacating his convictions were unavailing; (3) the district court did not err in including in Defendant’s sentence a condition of supervised release that Defendant be evaluated for participation in a mental health treatment program; and (4) the district court’s order of forfeiture of materials or property used in the possession or distribution of child pornography was an error and should be struck from the written judgment. View "United States v. Padilla-Galarza" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering and his sentence of fifty-five months in prison. The Court held that the district court did not err in (1) denying Defendant’s motion for acquittal on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction; (2) applying a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2S1.1(b)(1) after finding that Defendant knew that the crime of money laundering involved the proceeds of drug trafficking; and (3) denying Defendant a reduction based on his allegedly having a “minor or minimal” role in the offense. View "United States v. Gomez-Encarnacion" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for tax evasion, unlawful distribution of controlled substances, and health-care fraud, holding that Defendant was fairly tried and lawfully convicted. The Court held (1) the district court did not err in admitting other-acts evidence regarding Defendant’s sexual abuse of his daughter; (2) any error in the other evidentiary rulings disputed by Defendant on appeal were harmless; (3) the district court did not err in refusing to sever the tax evasion counts; (4) Defendant’s challenges to the district court’s jury instructions on the drug-distribution counts were unavailing; and (5) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction on the drug-distribution counts. View "United States v. Sabean" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the convictions of co-defendants Doris Morel and Erika Tomasino for conspiracy and multiple fraud-related counts based on their participation in a multi-year tax-return fraud scheme.On appeal, Morel raised only a Batson jury claim. Tomasino adopted the Batson claim and raised four claims of her own. The First Circuit denied the claims, holding (1) the Batson challenge patently lacked merit; (2) the government produced sufficient evidence to support Tomasino’s conviction for aggravated identity theft; (2) the district court did not err in giving the jury a Pinkerton instruction; (3) the district court did not commit clear error in admitting against Tomasino incriminating statements made by Morel; and (4) the district court properly admitted testimony from IRS Special Agent Matthew Amsden. View "United States v. Morel" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the eighty-four-month prison term Defendant received on a firearm charge following a remand for resentencing. On appeal from his resentencing, Defendant claimed that the trial judge incorrectly rejected the parties’ plea agreement in which the parties jointly recommended a sixty-month sentence and that the judge procedurally erred in sentencing him to eighty-four months of imprisonment. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) contrary to Defendant’s argument, the judge did accept the plea agreement and simply rejected the parties’ sentencing recommendation; and (2) Defendant could not succeed on his procedural unreasonableness claim. View "United States v. Garay-Sierra" on Justia Law

Amendment 794 to the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines clarifies the Sentencing Commission’s original intent regarding section 3B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines and therefore applies retroactively.Defendant pleaded guilty to two cocaine-related charges under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). On appeal, Defendant challenged the constitutionality of the MDLEA and section 3B1.2 and argued that he should be resentenced under the Sentencing Commission’s amended guidance in Amendment 794. The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) Congress did not exceed its constitutional authority in promulgating the MDLEA; (2) section 3B1.2 is not void for vagueness; but (3) Amendment 794 is clarifying, not substantive, and is therefore retroactively applicable. View "United States v. Sarmiento-Palacios" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed upon Defendant in connection with his conviction for knowing and intentional distribution of a controlled substance, holding that the district court properly denied an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under the sentencing guidelines.During the sentencing proceeding, Defendant stipulated that certain conduct constituted “relevant conduct” within the meaning of USSG 1B1.3. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in refusing to grant him an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility because the disputed conduct was not relevant conduct. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in refusing to grant Defendant an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. View "United States v. Coleman" on Justia Law