Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-28-2022

Case Style:

United States of America v. AKEEM CRUZ, a/k/a Vybe, a/k/a Mello

Case Number: 21-1388

Judge: Lynch

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on appeal from the District of Maine (Cumberland County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney's Office

Defendant's Attorney:



Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan


Click Here For The Best Portland Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory


If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Description: Portland, Maine criminal law lawyer represented Defendant charged with conspiracy to distribute drugs.


Akeem Cruz, Taylor Lovely, and Jeremiah Mitchell ("appellants") respectively pleaded guilty, pursuant to written plea agreements with the government, to (1) one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and more than 100 grams of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846; (2) two counts of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); and (3) one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing fentanyl in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846. Appellants' cases below were before three different district court judges. These separate prosecutions were consolidated on appeal because they raise the same appellate challenges.

The district court sentenced Cruz to 100 months' imprisonment followed by four years' supervised release; Lovely to 158 months' imprisonment followed by five years' supervised release; and Mitchell to 60 months' imprisonment followed by three months' supervised release. The district courts also imposed conditions of supervised release on all appellants, including Standard Condition 12. No appellant objected to the imposition of Standard Condition 12 in the district court. For the first time on appeal, appellants challenge Standard Condition 12 as unconstitutionally vague and an unconstitutional delegation of judicial authority.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: