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

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

Here, the First Circuit clarified its circuit’s emergency aid doctrine, holding that police officers seeking to justify their warrantless entry into homes need only demonstrate an objectively reasonable basis for believing that a person within the house is in need of immediate aid. See Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 47 (2009). The court thus modified its previous pronouncements in United States v. Martins, 413 F.3d 139 (1st Cir. 2005), and its progeny, clarifying that police officers need not establish that their belief approximated probable cause that such an emergency existed.In this case, the district court entered judgment for Defendants, police officers and the City of Taunton, concluding that the officers did not commit a Fourth Amendment violation because their conduct fell within the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement. The First Circuit took the opportunity in this case to clarify its emergency aid doctrine to bring its case law in line with Supreme Court precedent. The court then affirmed on the basis that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and no claim was stated against the City. View "Hill v. Walsh" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for federal program bribery, lying to a federal agent, and obstructing justice. The court held that, contrary to Defendant’s arguments on appeal, (1) the district court’s jury instructions did not effect a constructive amendment of the indictment on the bribery count; (2) the erroneous inclusion of a unanimity instruction in the jury charge on the particular benefits included within the “stream of benefits” alleged by the government on the bribery count did not prejudice Defendant; and (3) the court did not err in admitting evidence of prior bad acts and adequately instructed the jury about the testimony of immunized cooperating witnesses. View "United States v. Lopez-Cotto" on Justia Law

In 1991, Valerio, a citizen of Costa Rica, entered the U.S. without inspection. She was apprehended and placed in deportation proceedings but failed to appear. Valerio's then-boyfriend purchased her a birth certificate and social security card in the name of Rosa Hernandez, a U.S. citizen who lived in Puerto Rico. From 1995-2007, Valerio used Hernandez's identity to secure employment, open lines of credit, purchase cars and a home, and defraud the government of over $176,000 in housing assistance, food stamps, and other welfare benefits. In 2006, Hernandez learned about the fraud. Valerio was apprehended and was found guilty of aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A and three counts of mail fraud. 18 U.S.C. 1341. After Valerio served her sentence, DHS reopened Valerio’s deportation proceeding but mistakenly stated that she was subject to removal. An IJ denied her applications for asylum and withholding of removal, finding the conviction for aggravated identity theft a "particularly serious crime" under section 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). Following a remand, the BIA concluded that in deportation and removal proceedings alike, its longstanding multi-factor "Frentescu" framework for determining whether a nonaggravated felony qualifies as a "particularly serious crime" remains the same, and again found Valerio ineligible for withholding. The First Circuit agreed. The nature and circumstances of Valerio's crime were fully and properly considered." View "Valerio-Ramirez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed in connection with Defendant’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. The district court sentenced Defendant to ninety-five months imprisonment. In calculating Defendant’s sentence, the district court applied three enhancements: a two-level enhancement for possession of a stolen gun, a four-level enhancement for using a gun in connection with another felony, and a two-level enhancement for obstructing justice by committing perjury at trial. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court’s application of these enhancements. the First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no error in the district court’s imposition of the three enhancements. View "United States v. Colby" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that the seizure of contraband in Defendant’s undershorts did not violate the “plain feel” doctrine.During a pat-down incident to a Terry stop, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent discovered a softball-sized object stashed in Defendant’s undershorts. The agent arrested Defendant under the suspicion that the object was contraband. A subsequent search of Defendant’s person confirmed the agent’s suspicion that the object contained controlled substances. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the search and seizure were reasonable, and thus, Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. View "United States v. Rasberry" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant and for obstructing the due administration of justice. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that a series of errors occurred at his trial that either singly or in combination required reversal of his convictions. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support both convictions; (2) the district court erred in admitting into evidence a certain email, but the error was harmless; and (3) there were either no individual errors or the objections to the alleged errors were waived, with the sole exception being the admission of the email into evidence, but because the error was harmless, Defendant’s cumulative error argument was without merit. View "United States v. Ducoudray-Acevedo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of three federal post-conviction relief petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255, holding that the three petitions were untimely.Petitioners in these consolidated appeals each pled guilty to a federal firearm offense, and each had a history of Maine state burglary convictions. Each petitioner filed a federal habeas petition alleging that they no longer qualified for a sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because the ACCA’s residual clause was invalidated by Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. __ (2015) (Johnson II). All three petitions filed their habeas petitions outside of the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(1). Specifically, Petitioners alleged that their petitions were timely because Johnson II, which is retroactively applicable, was the source of their claims. The district court dismissed the petitions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the federal habeas petitions were untimely because they raised Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. __ (2016), claims, not Johnson II claims, and Mathis does not reset the statute of limitations under section 2255(f)(3). View "Dimott v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant enhancing Defendant’s offense level by four levels, resulting in a guideline sentencing range of seventy to eighty-seven months in connection with its finding that Defendant had been an organizer or leader of a conspiracy of five or more persons to procure and distribute cocaine and heroin. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence supported only a three-level enhancement for being a “manager or supervisor,” rather than an organizer or leader. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that the uncontested factual record supported the court’s conclusion that Defendant was the leader of the criminal activity at issue. View "United States v. Payne" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant enhancing Defendant’s offense level by four levels, resulting in a guideline sentencing range of seventy to eighty-seven months in connection with its finding that Defendant had been an organizer or leader of a conspiracy of five or more persons to procure and distribute cocaine and heroin. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence supported only a three-level enhancement for being a “manager or supervisor,” rather than an organizer or leader. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that the uncontested factual record supported the court’s conclusion that Defendant was the leader of the criminal activity at issue. View "United States v. Payne" on Justia Law