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

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court accepting Appellant’s guilty plea and his resulting sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Appellant to fifty-seven months in prison and three years of supervised release, a sentence that was to be served consecutively to Appellant’s earlier sentence for violating the terms of his supervise release. The court held (1) Appellant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary; (2) the government did not engage in a clear or obvious breach of the plea agreement by recommending a sentence of fifty-seven months; and (3) the trial court did not violate Appellant’s right to allocution. View "United States v. Tanco-Pizarro" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s convictions of securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit both. The convictions arose from Appellant’s writing of false opinion letters so that his two co-conspirators could sell stock to the public in a “pump and dump” scheme. On appeal, Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions in light of his interpretation of section 3(a)(9) of the Securities Act and that the district court constructively amended the indictment in its instructions to the jury. The First Circuit held (1) even if Appellant’s interpretation of section 3(a)(9) was correct, the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; and (2) Appellant’s constructive amendment claim was without merit. View "United States v. Weed" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s convictions of five counts of wire fraud, five counts of engaging in unlawful monetary transactions, two counts of filing false tax returns, and one count of bank fraud. The court held (1) the district court acted within its discretion in conducting its inquiry into the colorable allegation of juror misconduct and did not err in finding that no juror misconduct occurred; (2) the district court did not deprive Appellant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice by denying his continuance motion; and (3) even assuming that the bank fraud counts were improperly joined with the remaining counts, any misjoinder was harmless. View "United States v. Zimny" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s sentence of ten years’ imprisonment imposed after Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of accessing child pornography with the intent to view it. On appeal, Defendant asked the First Circuit to declare the mandatory minimum sentence for accessing child pornography applicable to any individual who has a prior state conviction for abusive sexual conduct involving a minor unconstitutional as violative of the Due Process Clause. The First Circuit held (1) the mandatory minimum sentence established under 18 U.S.C. 2252A(b)(2) is consistent with the Due Process Clause; and (2) Defendant’s ten-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the crime that he committed and thus did not infringe on his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. View "United States v. Blodgett" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court denying Appellant’s motion brought under 28 U.S.C. 2255 regarding his underlying criminal case on the ground that the motion must be dismissed. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery and one count of using a firearm during a crime of violence. Under the plea agreement, Appellant waived his right to bring certain collateral challenges to either his convictions or his sentences. The district court sentenced Appellant to consecutive prison sentences for his two federal convictions. Seventeen years later, Appellant brought this section 2255 motion seeking to vacate his conviction for use of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence and to vacate his sentence for bank robbery. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment, holding that the waiver in the plea agreement, combined with Appellant’s failure to argue in his briefs that the waiver was self-evidently inapplicable, barred Appellant from filing the motion. View "Remington v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of supervised release conditions upon Defendant after the court vacated his original sentence under Jonson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). On appeal, Defendant focused on the conditions requiring him to comply with a sex offender evaluation and restricting his contact with individuals under the age of eighteen. The First Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the supervised release conditions because they were grounded in Defendant’s criminal history, as well as in the goals of public protection and rehabilitation. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the order of the district court vacating a sentence originally imposed upon Defendant. After sentencing Defendant to a fifty-seven-month term of immurement for violating 18 U.S. 2421(a), the court, acting sua sponte, concluded that section 2421(a) “does not apply to a purely intrastate criminal act committed within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico” and dismissed the case. The government appealed, challenging the district court’s vacation of the earlier sentence. The First Circuit vacated the order voiding the sentence and dismissing the original case and ordered that the sentence be reinstated by the district court, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revisit Defendant’s sentence more than three weeks after its imposition. View "United States v. Mercado-Flores" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and (a)(3) for possessing fifty rounds of thirty-eight-caliber ammo while being a convicted felon and for transporting a SCCY Model CXP 9-mm pistol into his state of residence without a license. The court held that the trial judge (1) did not abuse his discretion by not individually voir during prospective jurors about their feelings toward race; (2) did not abuse his discretion by admitting evidence of other gun and ammo purchases; and (3) did not commit reversible error in instructing the jury on willful blindness. View "United States v. Parker" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, thus affirming Defendant’s convictions, entered after a jury trial, of first-degree murder, two counts of armed robbery, and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. The court held (1) any error in the trial court’s admission into evidence of a plea agreement made by a government witness did not cause Defendant the type of prejudice that would warrant habeas relief; (2) the district court’s jury instructions on the elements of felony murder were proper under Massachusetts law; and (3) trial counsel provided constitutionally effective assistance. View "Lucien v. Spencer" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions on one count relating to a robbery and three counts relating to a subsequent drug conspiracy. The court also affirmed Defendant’s sentence of 250 months of imprisonment and eight years of supervised release. The court held (1) the drug charges and robbery charges were properly joined; (2) the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant for possession with intent to distribute heroin; (3) the district court did not err by admitting evidence that Defendant viewed as inappropriately prejudicial; (4) any error on the part of the district court in limiting defense counsel’s attempt to question a defense witness on redirect was harmless; (5) the jury instructions on aiding and abetting were proper; and (6) the district court’s drug quantity determination and the two-level enhancement that the court applied for Defendant’s role as an organizer were not erroneous. View "United States v. Monteiro" on Justia Law