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

Articles Posted in June, 2012
by
Defendants were convicted of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy or both, and other federal crimes, incident to years of participation in a criminal organization responsible for a large illegal gambling operation. The charged conduct involved sports betting, "football cards," and video poker that spawned criminal support activities such as money laundering, usurious lending, and extortionate collection of credit. The three male defendants also sought to burn down a business. Before trial, defendants jointly moved to suppress evidence obtained through a series of wiretaps. The district court denied the motion. All defendants were convicted of nearly all of the charges, and were sentenced to terms of 271 months, 216 months, 183 months, and (the female) 21 months. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting various challenges, including challenges to the wiretaps, and stating that there was no chance that innocent defendants were convicted. View "United States v. Albertelli" on Justia Law

by
Quiles visited the federal courthouse in Puerto Rico to verify the status of civil cases he had filed pro se. Disgruntled that his cases had been dismissed and by his inability to obtain counsel, he dressed in a shirt with the message "Desobediencia Civil", hidden under another shirt. After passing security and filing a motion expressing his discontent, he reviewed the status of his cases on the court's electronic system, turned his shirt, revealing the message, and destroyed the computer monitor and scanner. His acts of defiance completed, Quiles lay on the ground with his hands behind his back. The Clerk's Office replaced the scanner for $2,322.85 and installed a spare monitor. The government charged Quiles with depredation of U.S. property resulting in damages exceeding $1,000.00, 18 U.S.C. 1361. When Quiles failed to comply with conditions of bail, the court issued a warrant, ordering him detained until trial. The district court denied appointed counsel's motion for a continuance on the grounds that the pro se motion for a change of venue had not been found. The court denied oral requests for change of venue and recusal of the judge. Quiles was convicted and sentenced to time served and restitution. The First Circuit affirmed View "United States v. Quiles-Olivo" on Justia Law

by
After the government disclosed new information regarding its confidential informant, Rigaud moved to suppress evidence recovered in 2006 during the execution of a search warrant and sought an evidentiary hearing to establish that there were material omissions from an affidavit submitted in support of the request for a search warrant that undermined the probable cause finding. The district court denied the motion. Rigaud then pleaded guilty to drug trafficking charges, reserving his right to appeal denial of his motion to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed. The district court correctly found that disclosure that the informant was not searched or was searched inadequately would not have resulted in a negative finding on probable cause; there was ample corroboration to overcome her untrustworthiness. View "United States v. Rigaud" on Justia Law

by
After the company began to fail, plaintiffs, co-founders and shareholders of Environamics, which designed, manufactured, and sold pumps and sealing devices, sought investors to satisfy its debt. SKF learned that Environamics had developed and patented a "universal power frame" that SKF had been trying to develop for some time, and repeatedly expressed interest in acquiring Environamics. Environamics began to share confidential business information with SKF, stopped seeking out new distribution channels and ceased looking for other opportunities to pay its debt. They gave SKF an irrevocable option to purchase all outstanding Environamics stock and made SKF exclusive marketer and reseller of Environamics products. SKF paid Environamics $2 million. The relationship deteriorated as Environamics required additional financing. Because of SKF’s rights and requirements, plaintiffs made personal guarantees to obtain financing from Wells Fargo. Eventually Environamics filed for bankruptcy. Plaintiffs, responsible for roughly $5 million in personal guarantees on the Wells Fargo loan, sued under an estoppel theory. The district court granted SKF summary judgment. The First Circuit affirmed, finding no specific, competent evidence of any promise made by SKF to buy Environamics on terms other than those of the Option on which plaintiffs could reasonably have relied View "Rockwood v. SKF, USA, Inc." on Justia Law

by
Ayala was born in 1957, shortly after Guatemala's president was assassinated. The decades that followed were tumultuous, with guerilla violence common until peace arrived in 1996. Her family suffered two deaths and two robberies. In 1993, Ayala fled to the U.S., leaving behind children, ages 10 and 14 and filed a petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In 2006, DHS charged her as removeable. An IJ found Ayala credible but denied her relief because she could not prove past persecution, establish a reasonable fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground, or meet the more difficult tests for withholding of removal and CAT protection. The BIA affirmed, rejecting her claim for asylum under 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(A) because Ayala was unable to establish that past persecution was or the persecution she fears will be on account of a legally protected ground. The First Circuit affirmed. Asylum claims based on perceived wealth because of a petitioner's connections to the U.S. have consistently been rejected. View "Ayala v. Holder" on Justia Law

by
In 2011, FSRO filed a Demand for Arbitration against Fantastic Sam's Franchise Corporation, on behalf of its members, who are franchisees, holding individual license agreements with Fantastic Sams. FSRO alleged that the Corporation had breached those license agreements. The Corporation filed a petition pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 4, to stay FSRO's arbitration and to compel FSRO members to arbitrate their claims individually. The district court allowed the petition as to license agreements that specifically prohibit class-arbitration. The decision in favor of the Corporation was not appealed. The court denied relief as to other agreements, which state: “Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating in any way to this Agreement or with regard to its formation, interpretation or breach shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association." The First Circuit affirmed. Whether the language permits group arbitration, as requested by FSRO, is a question for the arbitrators. View "Fantastic Sams Franchise Corp. v. FSRO Ass'n, Ltd." on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, a Portuguese national, was admitted into the U.S. in 1984 as a lawful permanent resident. Roughly a quarter-century later, Massachusetts authorities charged him with shoplifting and larceny, arising out of separate crimes allegedly committed at separate times and places. Petitioner pleaded guilty to the shoplifting charge and was fined $250. He pleaded guilty to the larceny charge and was sentenced to 18 months of probation. The shoplifting fine was never paid, but was vacated. DHS commenced removal proceedings based on convictions for two independent crimes of moral turpitude, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). The IJ rejected petitioner's argument that he had not been "convicted," and ordered removal. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied appeal. A "conviction" can occur if there is "a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court," 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), which occurred in this case, despite the fact that petitioner was never punished. View "Viveiros v. Holder" on Justia Law

by
Aponte, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, was admitted to the U.S. as a Lawful Permanent Resident in 1996. In 1999, she pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. After she sought to reenter in 2003, DHS charged Aponte as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Aponte conceded removability, but obtained a continuance to attempt to have her conviction expunged. After three years, she had not succeeded and, in 2007, the IJ ordered removal. Having received no brief, the BIA dismissed her appeal and, later, declined to reopen, finding insufficient proof of inadequate notice. On remand, Aponte claimed that her attorney before the IJ provided ineffective assistance. The BIA found that Aponte was not eligible for cancellation of removal because she did not establish seven years of continuous residence as she could not properly impute her father's residency; that she did not show prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding, or CAT protection; and that she could not establish ineffective assistance because she had not demonstrated probability of prejudice. The First Circuit denied appeal with respect to eligibility for cancellation of removal, but remanded with respect to eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, and ineffective assistance of counsel. .View "Aponte v. Holder" on Justia Law

by
Taxpayers, who incurred tax liability as a result of a failed business, had transferred real estate to a trust for the benefit of family members. The IRS determined that, with accrued interest, their indebtedness exceeds $400,000 and, in 2004, gave notice of intent to levy, 26 U.S.C. 6330(a). The taxpayers did not dispute the amount, but requested a pre-attachment CDP hearing and offered to settle their debt for $10,000. They denied that they had any ownership interest in the property and asserted that, with their assets and income, they could never come close to satisfying their total tax liability. After gathering information and hearing arguments, the IRS rejected the offer in compromise, finding that the taxpayers were the real owners. The Tax Court reviewed the determination de novo, found that the taxpayers were not the owners of the real estate, directed the IRS to accept the offer in compromise, and ordered the IRS to pay attorneys' fees. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the Tax Court employed an improper standard of review with respect to the IRS's subsidiary determinations. Under a more deferential standard, consistent with the nature and purpose of the CDP process, the IRS acted reasonably. View "Dalton v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue Serv." on Justia Law

by
Starski claims that he had a business relationship with a Vietnamese enterprise (Sovico) and sought to facilitate a $1.5 billion debt swap between the governments of Vietnam and the Russian Federation; that Starski joined with (defendant) Kirzhnev, said to have high level contacts in the Russian government; that Kirzhnev agreed to pay Starski a substantial commission; that $1 billion of the debt swap was completed and $100 million in commissions paid to some combination of Kirzhnev, Kirzhnev’s company, and Sovico; but that Kirzhnev paid Starski nothing. Starski’s suit, seeking at least $25 million in damages, included claims for conversion, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud and unfair business practices in violation of Massachusetts' Chapter 93A. The jury held that no contract had been proved by Starski. The First Circuit affirmed, upholding the exclusion of evidence of Kirzhnev's convictions in Russian court for bribery and the bar on cross-examination of Kirzhnev about documents that were seized or destroyed during his arrest by Russian authorities for those same crimes. Starski did not adequately authenticate the convictions and offered nothing to support the fairness of the convictions or the Russian criminal justice system generally. View "Starski v. Kirzhnev" on Justia Law