Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The district court sentenced Defendant to five years in prison. The sentence was well above the top of the applicable guideline sentencing range. Defendant appealed, contending that the district court did not make an individualized assessment of the relevant sentencing factors but, rather, relied on impermissible considerations. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's sentence, holding (1) the district judge gave individualized attention to Defendant's situation; (2) it is permissible for a sentencing court to consider the incidence and trend lines of particular types of crime in the affected community, and the assignment of appreciable weight to the need for deterrence in this case was a reasonable choice; (3) Defendant's claim of unwarranted sentencing disparity failed; and (4) under the circumstances, Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Flores-Machicote" on Justia Law

The police investigation of a hit-and-run resulted in the arrests of Robert and Mario Robinson, father and son, and the seizure of Robert's car. All of the charges against both Mario and Robert were eventually dismissed by the state trial court. The Robinsons subsequently filed suit against the City and eight police officers who were present for or involved in various phases of the investigation, arrest, and detention. The Robinsons raised state and federal constitutional claims based on allegations of unlawful arrest, the use of excessive force, and the unreasonable seizure of the car. They also asserted several state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on most of the Robinson's claims with the exception of the claims of excessive force, assault and battery, aiding and abetting, and civil conspiracy. The district court later granted summary judgment for three of the police officer defendants as to the civil conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims. The court then dismissed the remaining claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that based on the record, the defendants acted lawfully. View "Robinson v. Cook" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted possession of at least five kilograms of cocaine with the intent to distribute. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the district court erroneously allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence that after his arrest, law enforcement agents discovered roughly $45,000 in a storage locker that he rented, and (2) the prosecutor's closing argument contained improper comments that violated his right to a fair trial. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) in light of the evidence, there was little risk of unfair prejudice in the admission of the cash seized from Defendant's storage locker; and (2) viewed in their proper context and under the circumstances, the prosecutor's comments were not improper. View "United States v. Matias" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with one count of possessing firearms and ammunition after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9). As a predicate offense to the charge, the indictment listed a 2008 misdemeanor conviction for Defendant's assault of his wife. After the district court denied Defendant's pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment, Defendant entered a guilty plea conditioned on his right to appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss. Defendant appealed, asking the First Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider arguments regarding (1) whether section 922(g)(9) should be construed to exclude a purportedly non-violent offensive physical contact misdemeanor conviction as a predicate offense, and (2) whether applying section 922(g)(9) to such a prior conviction would violate Defendant's Second Amendment rights. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that First Circuit precedent in United States v. Booker and United States v. Nason foreclosed the arguments made here. View "United States v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to unlawfully distribute Oxycodone, Oxycontin, Suboxone, Larzepam, and Ativan. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) denying Defendant's Speedy Trial Act claims in her motion to dismiss on the basis that the exclusion of time for her co-defendant's continuance was unreasonable as to her; (2) failing to sua sponte order a mental competency evaluation after Defendant sustained an injury during trial; and (3) denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal based on a prejudicial variance between the conspiracy proven at trial and that charged in the superseding indictment. View "United States v. Maryea" on Justia Law

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received funds appropriated by Congress under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In 2006, HHS contracted with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to provide services to trafficking victims. At USCCB's insistence, the contract incorporated a restriction pursuant to which neither USCCB nor any of its subcontractors would use funding to counsel or provide contraceptive services and prescriptions or abortions to trafficking victims. The ACLU of Massachusetts (ACLUM) brought suit, alleging that HHS violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In 2012, the district court issued a declaratory judgment that HHS had violated the Establishment Clause. The federal defendants appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated on grounds of mootness, where the 2006 contract expired in 2011. Remanded with instructions to dismiss. View "ACLU of Mass. v. U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Darryl Tavares and Eddie Jones were both convicted of conspiracy to knowingly transport an individual in interstate commerce with the intent that such individual engage in prostitution. Tavares was also convicted of knowingly transporting a minor across state lines to engage in prostitution and of sex trafficking of a child. Jones was also convicted of aiding and abetting the transportation of a minor across state lines to engage in prostitution and of knowingly transporting a minor in interstate commerce with the intent that she engage in prostitution. The district court sentenced Defendants to 300 months' imprisonment and to three years' supervised release. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its rulings during trial; (2) substantial evidence supported the convictions; and (3) the trial court did not err in sentencing Defendants. View "US v. Tavares" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of having, among other things, engaged in a scheme to conceal and avoid her company's employment tax liability. The district court determined that Defendant was responsible for approximately $1.2 million in tax losses. Defendant was sentenced to eighty-seven months incarceration. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) Defendant waived her argument that the district court erred by submitting a set of summary charts to the jury; (2) the district court did not err by adopting the government's calculation of the tax losses for which Defendant should be held responsible as a result of her fraudulent payroll scheme; and (3) the district court did not plainly err by failing to inquire specifically as to whether Defendant had reviewed the presentence report (PSR) with her attorney because the evidence showed Defendant reviewed the PSR with her sentencing counsel. View "United States v. Deleon" on Justia Law

At the turn of this century, the Massachusetts legislature passed a law that created fixed and floating buffer zones around abortion clinics. The First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected several challenges to the law's constitutionality. In 2007, the legislature amended the statute to create a fixed thirty-five-foot buffer zone around the entrances, exits, and driveways of abortion clinics. The First Circuit upheld the law against a facial challenge. Plaintiffs pursued an as-applied challenge in district court, where it was rejected. Plaintiffs again appealed, principally raising First Amendment arguments. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the statute is a content-neutral, narrowly tailored time-place-manner regulation that protects the rights of prospective patients and clinic employees without offending the First Amendment rights of others. View "McCullen v. Coakley" on Justia Law

In 1984, following the denial of his motion to suppress, a jury convicted Petitioner of one count of conspiracy to possess marijuana, and the sentencing court sentenced Petitioner to four years incarceration. After various appeals, Petitioner reached an agreement with the government wherein he abandoned his suppression challenge and the government recommended that his sentence be reduced to eighteen months' imprisonment. In 2007, Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of error coram nobis, attacking the denial of the suppression motion in the 1984 case based on newly available evidence. Although Petitioner had been released from imprisonment for the 1984 crime, that conviction operated to increase the sentence he received as the result of his next criminal conviction, for which Petitioner was still serving time. The district court denied Petitioner's petition. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that issuance of the writ would not be warranted under the facts and circumstances of this case. View "Murray v. United States" on Justia Law