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

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed on Defendant after Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal charges based on her conduct during the court of a large-scale fraudulent financial scheme, which she led for five years. The district court sentenced Defendant to 135 months’ imprisonment for one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud and to twenty-four months’ imprisonment for one count of aggravated identity theft and ordered that Defendant serve these terms consecutively, for a total term of 159 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, the First Circuit held that Defendant failed to carry her heavy burden that her within-the-range sentence was unreasonable. View "United States v. Castrillon-Sanchez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction for possessing a firearm entered after a second jury trial but vacated his sentence, holding that the district court erred in determining that Defendant was subject to a 180-month mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court held (1) the trial judge did not improperly comment on the credibility of two witnesses at trial; and (2) the district court erred in finding that Defendant had at least three previous convictions by any court for a violent felony under the ACCA, and therefore, the district court improperly ruled that the ACCA’s 180-month mandatory minimum sentence applied. View "United States v. Starks" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgments convicting and sentencing Tony Bedini and Iskender Kapllani (together, Defendants) for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. On appeal, Defendants argued, inter alia, that they suffered unfair prejudice from being charged with participating in a single drug conspiracy but then jointly tried based on evidence that allegedly showed their participation in two separate drug conspiracies. The First Circuit held (1) the record supported a jury finding that Defendants participated in a single drug conspiracy; (2) the district court did not err in rejecting the jury instruction that Defendants had requested regarding whether the jury had to find a single conspiracy; and (3) Defendants’ remaining challenges to their convictions and sentences were without merit. View "United States v. Bedini" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence of sixty months’ imprisonment.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The district court made a guidelines calculation that, in accordance with the pre-sentence investigation report, yielded a recommended sentencing range of twelve to eighteen months’ imprisonment. The court then imposed a variant sentence of sixty months’ imprisonment, basing forty-two months on Defendant’s firearms-related conduct. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no clear or obvious error in the district court’s decision not to apply a two-level firearms enhancement and to impose a variant sentence of sixty months. View "United States v. Torres-Figueroa" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of violating Maine’s assault statute. The court of appeals vacated Defendant’s conviction and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court dismissed the indictment. The government appealed the dismissal. While the appeal was pending, the First Circuit issued its decision in United States v. Voisine, which the Supreme Court affirmed. See Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. __ (2016). The First Circuit reversed the decision below and ordered the indictment reinstated in light of Voisine, which made it clear that Defendant’s original conviction was proper. The court then remanded the case for reentry of the judgment of conviction and the sentence, albeit with leave for Defendant to proceed with a previously preserved challenge to his sentence. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

The First Circuit remanded this case for further proceedings, holding that the district court abused its discretion in failing to rule on the merits of Appellant’s ineffective assistance claim prior to sentencing.Appellant was charged with several counts related to a drug distribution conspiracy. Appellant was originally represented by court-appointed counsel, but after seven months Defendant retained private counsel Prior to sentencing, Appellant raised his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, arguing that his prior counsel allegedly failed to provide him with effective assistance throughout plea negotiations. The district court declined to rule on Appellant’s claim, finding it to be “premature.” Appellant ultimately pled guilty to a high plea offer negotiated by his new counsel. The First Circuit disagreed with the district court’s ruling, holding that, at times, it may be imperative for a district court to rule on a claim of ineffective assistance prior to the defendant seeking post-conviction relief, and such was true in this case. View "United States v. Ortiz-Vega" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, holding that the district court did not err, much less commit plain error, in accepting Defendant’s guilty plea.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to a one-count information charging him with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, the district court imposed a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment. The First Circuit held (1) there was no error in the district court’s acceptance of Defendant’s guilty plea; and (2) even if Defendant established that an error occurred, in light of the strength of the government’s evidence and the substantial benefit Defendant received by pleading guilty, Defendant could not demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty but for the purported error. View "United States v. Diaz-Concepcion" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendants Abraham Walker-Couvertier (Walker) and Dean Lugo-Diaz (Lugo) were found guilty of numerous drug-related crimes. The trial court sentenced Walker to concurrent 192-month terms of immurement on the drug counts and a consecutive sixty-month term of immurement on a firearms count. The court sentenced Lugo to concurrent 121-month terms of immurement on the various counts of conviction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendants’ belated challenge to the requirement, as applied in the District of Puerto Rico, that jurors be proficient in English failed; (2) Walker’s challenge to the propriety of a traffic stop was not preserved for appellate review; (3) contrary to Defendants’ arguments, several statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument were not prejudicial; (4) there was no plain error in the challenged jury instructions; (5) the evidence was sufficient to support Lugo’s conspiracy conviction; and (6) Defendants’ claims of sentencing error were unavailing. View "United States v. Walker-Couvertier" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a straight guilty plea to possession of a machine gun. The district court sentenced Defendant to thirty-three months’ imprisonment in accordance with the government’s recommendation. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that his thirty-three-month sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. In support of his claim that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable, Defendant made several arguments. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s claims of procedural error failed, and his sentence was not procedurally unreasonable; and (2) under the circumstances of this case, imposition of a thirty-three-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Nigerian citizen by birth, pleaded guilty to making a material false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States government. Because of his conviction, Petitioner was permanently barred from obtaining lawful permanent resident status and was subject to deportation at any moment. Nearly a decade after his probationary sentence ended, Petitioner sought a writ of error coram nobis that vacates or allows him to revise the factual basis of his conviction. As grounds for the writ, Petitioner alleged that the performance of his attorney was constitutionally deficient under Sixth Amendment standards, and therefore, his conviction arose from fundamental error. The district court denied a writ of error coram nobis. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner’s counsel was not constitutionally ineffective in any way. View "Williams v. United States" on Justia Law