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

After addressing the proper standard for evaluating the enforceability of an appellate waiver the First Circuit dismissed Appellant’s appeal challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence, holding that Appellant’s waiver of appeal must be enforced.Appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to knowingly possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment within the plea agreement’s appellate waiver range. On appeal, Appellant argued that his plea agreement’s appellate waiver was unenforceable under the tripartite framework of United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14, (1st Cir. 2001), and that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The government urged the First Circuit to dismiss the appeal based on the plain-error analysis set forth in United States v. Borrero-Acevedo, 533 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2008). The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding (1) any inconsistency between Teeter and Borrero-Acevedo need not be reconciled in this case; and (2) even under the more defendant-friendly Teeter approach, Defendant’s waiver of appeal was enforceable. View "United States v. Villodas-Rosario" on Justia Law

The First Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for judicial review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings, holding that the BIA overlooked a significant factor relevant to its analysis.During his removal hearing, Petitioner, an Indonesian national and an evangelical Christian, testified that he had experienced persecution in Indonesia on account of his faith. An immigration judge denied relief. Approximately ten years later, Petitioner moved to reopen his removal proceedings, arguing that conditions in Indonesia affecting Indonesian Christians had materially changed. The BIA denied relief. The First Circuit vacated the BIA’s order, holding that the BIA abused its discretion in neglecting to consider significant facts that may have had a bearing on the validity of Petitioner’s motion to reopen. The Court remanded so that the BIA may determine, after considering all the relevant evidence, whether Petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for the relief sought. View "Sihotang v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions and the order of restitution imposed by the trial court but vacated the sentence of incarceration and remanded for resentencing, holding that the trial judge erred when it used the 2014 Guidelines Manual rather than the 2015 Guidelines manual at the time of sentencing and that the trial judge’s clear error affected Defendant’s substantial rights.The Court held (1) the government presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions for bankruptcy fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft; (2) the bankruptcy fraud theory the government argued in its closing did not constitute a constructive amendment to Defendant’s indictment nor a prejudicial variance; (3) the trial judge properly instructed the jury about bankruptcy fraud and aggravated identity theft; (4) the district judge used the incorrect version of the United States Sentencing Commission’s Guidelines Manual, which affected both the calculation of the applicable guidelines sentencing range and the ultimate imposition of the sentence of incarceration; and (5) the district court did not commit any errors when it ordered restitution to the clerk of court for the district court. View "United States v. Valdes-Ayala" on Justia Law

The First Circuit (1) denied Petitioners’ petition for review as to their challenge to the determination of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that Petitioners' motion to reopen a removal order was untimely and number barred, and (2) dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction as to Petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s decision not to exercise its authority to reopen sua sponte.Petitioners, natives of Guatemala, were ordered removed by an immigration judge in 2000. In 2001, the BIA denied their appeal. In 2017, Petitioners filed a motion to reopen or reconsider the removal order. The BIA denied the motion as untimely filed and numerically barred. The BIA also declined to reopen the removal proceedings sua sponte because it did not consider Petitioners’ situation “exceptional.” The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the BIA correctly held that Petitioners had failed to justify the delay in filing the motion to reopen and dismissing it as untimely; and (2) this Court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen sua sponte. View "Lemus v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed in connection with Defendant’s plea of guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and one count of possession of a machine gun, holding that Defendant’s sixty-six-month sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.The district court imposed an above guideline sentence of sixty-six months imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently, and three years of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s sentence was procedurally reasonable; and (2) the sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Sosa-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence for wire fraud and theft in connection with health care, holding that Defendant’s upwardly variant sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.Defendant pled guilty to one count of theft in connection with health care and one count of wire fraud. The district court imposed an upwardly variant sentence of sixty months’ imprisonment on each count of conviction, to run concurrently and to be followed by three years of supervised release. The court also ordered Defendant to forfeit $394,300 and to pay $590,296 in restitution to the victim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant’s sentence was neither procedurally unreasonable nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Gierbolini-Rivera" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s order upholding an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) conclusion that although Appellant had previously been eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits as a child, Appellant was ineligible for SSI benefits as an adult, holding that the record before the ALJ was insufficient to conclude that Appellant was no longer disabled.When Appellant was twelve years old, the Commissioner of Social Security Administration (SSA) determined that he was entitled to SSI benefits because he was found to have met the SSA's requirements for mental retardation. The Commissioner later found that Appellant was no longer disabled and that his benefits should stop. Appellant requested a hearing with an ALJ, who found that Appellant was not disabled under the Social Security Act. Upon de novo review, the First Circuit held that the record before the ALJ was not adequately developed enough to conclude that Appellant was no longer disabled, particularly in light of the fact that the ALJ was on notice, through both Social Security Administration filings and hearing testimony, that Appellant was undergoing psychiatric treatment. View "Torres-Pagan v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment followed by lifetime supervised release imposed in connection with Defendant’s plea of guilty to possession of child pornography, holding that Defendant’s sentence was without procedural error and was substantively reasonable.After noting that even assuming, favorably to Defendant that the abuse of discretion standard applied, the First Circuit held that Defendant failed to establish any abuse of discretion on appeal. Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court adequately explained why it imposed a condition of lifetime supervised release; (2) Defendant’s within-guidelines sentence of lifetime supervised release was substantively reasonable; and (3) Defendant’s ten-year term of imprisonment was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Harrison" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the 121-month sentence imposed in connection with Defendant's plea of guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, holding that the district court correctly calculated Defendant’s Guidelines sentencing range (GSR).On appeal, Defendant raised two procedural challenges to the district court’s calculation of his GSR. After reviewing the record, which showed that Defendant maintained a false identity throughout his criminal proceedings, the First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court imposed a plainly warranted sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice and did not err in denying Defendant a credit for acceptance of responsibility. View "United States v. Perez-Crisostomo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentenced imposed in connection with Defendant’s guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute, holding that Defendant’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable and that there was no error in the sentence.After considering a ten-year sentence to protect the public from “someone who is a career criminal,” the court sentenced Defendant to seventy-eight months’ imprisonment, a sentence significantly below Defendant’s guidelines sentencing range as a career offender. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s claim that the trial court wrongly denied him a minimal participant reduction was unavailing because a minimal participant designation would not have helped him; (2) Defendant qualified as a career offender; and (3) the below-guidelines sentence of seventy-eight months was not unreasonable. View "United States v. Reid" on Justia Law