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

At issue in this case was whether the governor of Maine violated the First Amendment by removing a large state-owned mural, commissioned by the former administration, from its location on the walls of a small waiting room for visitors to the Maine Department of Labor (MDOL). The mural consisted of panels depicting selected episodes in the history of Maine labor. Plaintiffs, six Maine residents who had viewed the mural and planned to view it again at the MDOL office, filed a complaint against the governor and the commissioner of MDOL claiming that the mural's removal was impermissibly content- and viewpoint-based. The U.S. district court entered judgment for Defendants. After noting that the MDOL waiting room was not a public forum, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the government may, in this setting, choose to disassociate itself from an endorsement implicit from the setting for the mural, which it understood as interfering with the message of neutrality the administration wished to portray. View "Newton v. LePage" on Justia Law

This case involved legal challenges to recent federal management actions taken in New England's sensitive Multispecies Groundfish Fishery (Fishery). The challenges centered on the promulgation of a new groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), Amendment Sixteen, which altered and expanded the Fishery's preexisting "sector allocation program" and established new restrictions on fishing activities to end and prevent overfishing. Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court alleging that Amendment Sixteen conflicted with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act's provisions governing "limited access privilege programs," with the ten "national standards" applicable to all FMPs, and with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought to enjoin implementation of Amendment Sixteen. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants as to all claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed entry of judgment for Defendants, holding (1) Amendment Sixteen was implemented with the protections required by the Reauthorization Act; (2) Amendment Sixteen was consistent with the ten national standards; and (3) Amendment Sixteen was implemented in accordance with the requirements of NEPA. View "City of New Bedford v. Locke" on Justia Law

After a three-day trial, a jury convicted Defendant of being a felon in possession of a firearm and knowingly possessing a firearm with an altered serial number. Defendant appealed, claiming (1) the district court erroneously precluded his proposed entrapment defense and improperly admitted certain evidence at trial, and (2) because the Commerce Clause does not endow Congress with the requisite authority to regulate the conduct covered by the underlying statutes of conviction, those statutes were invalid and unenforceable. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court's denial of Defendant's pretrial motions to unveil and subpoena an alleged confidential informant did not deprive Defendant of his constitutional right to present a complete defense; (2) the district court's admission of the disputed evidence was not error; and (3) the underlying statutes of conviction were valid and constitutional. View "United States v. Roszkowski" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Appellant on nine counts growing out of a conspiracy to commit armed robbery and the unlawful killing of a guard during a robbery. In an earlier multi-defendant appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentences on eight of the nine counts. As to the remaining count, however, the First Circuit affirmed Appellant's conviction but vacated his sentence in order to afford him an opportunity to allocute. At resentencing on that count, the district court heard Appellant's allocution and proceeded to reinstate the original sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court's failure to fully explain its reason for imposing its sentence on count eight was not plain error, and Appellant's sentence on count eight was substantively reasonable; and (2) Appellant's conviction and sentence on count nine did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. View "United States v. Medina-Villegas" on Justia Law

This insurance coverage dispute arose from charges of sexual harassment brought by a one-time employee against Appellant, the former president of Jasmine Company, Inc. Appellant sought a defense to and indemnity for the harassment claims from Appellee, Jasmine's liability insurance provider. The district court ruled that Appellant was not entitled to coverage from Appellee because, under the doctrine of issue preclusion, a prior arbitration between Appellant and the purchaser of his business conclusively established that Appellant's conduct fell within an exclusion to Appellee's insurance policy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the arbitration presented Appellant with the full and fair opportunity for adjudication on the issue at hand; and (2) therefore, the district court was correct to bar Appellant from disputing the applicability of the exclusion based on the doctrine of issue preclusion. View "Manganella v. Evanston Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant served several prison terms for sex-related crimes. Before Appellant was released from custody in the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the federal government commenced the effort to have him certified as a sexually dangerous person and to commit him civilly under the Adam Walsh Act. The federal district court determined that Appellant met the conditions for certification as a sexually dangerous person and ordered him civilly committed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was legitimately in BOP custody when the commitment proceeding began, as required by statute; and (2) the district court correctly found that Appellant suffered from the requisite mental disorder and that he satisfied the statutory dangerousness test. View "United States v. Wetmore" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed a judgment of the U.S. district court sentencing him to thirty-three months' imprisonment for failing to register as a sex offender. In calculating a range for his sentence under the sentencing guidelines, the district court included two additional criminal history points because Appellant was under a criminal justice sentence when he failed to register. Appellant contended that he was not under a criminal justice sentence at that time. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Appellant was under a criminal justice sentence when he failed to register, and therefore, the district court's sentencing calculation was sound. View "United States v. Peters" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed a grant of summary judgment to her former employer in this suit for discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, arguing that the district judge slipped by premising dismissal on disputed facts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiff's appeal with prejudice after discussing the circumstances under which appeals will be dismissed for failure to adhere to appellate rules, holding that Plaintiff's substantial noncompliance with important appellate rules were major violations in that they crippled any attempt to review the issues intelligently and constituted sufficient cause to dismiss the appeal. View "Rodriguez-Machado v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Chapter 11 debtor Redondo Construction Corporation brought an adversary proceeding against the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (Authority) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico, claiming amounts due for work performed on five construction projects. Following a lengthy trial, the bankruptcy court awarded Redondo a total of nearly $10,250,000 in damages, plus interest at six percent per annum from the "payment due" date for each project. The district court affirmed the judgment in all respects. The Authority appealed the award of interest. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment primarily with regard to the interest and (1) remanded for assessment of postjudgment interest for the period between the entry of judgment and the date of deposit; (2) vacated the award of prejudgment interest and remanded for a determination of whether an award of prejudgment interest was appropriate; and (3) remanded for modification of the judgment awarding Redondo an excess amount for one claim. View "Redondo Constr. Corp. v. P.R. Highway and Transp." on Justia Law

House of Flavors purchased equipment from Tetra and executed an agreement with Tetra to fund its installation. Under the agreement, Tetra paid for the installation, House of Flavors then transferred ownership of the installed system to Tetra, and Tetra leased the system back to House of Flavors. After House of Flavors began monthly lease payments, it sought to exercise the buy back option a year early. Notwithstanding the twelve percent estimate it quoted earlier, Tetra quoted a purchase price around forty percent of the equipment and installation costs. House of Flavors filed suit in federal district court, where it prevailed on its claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed but remanded the case to reconsider the balance due between the parties. On remand, the judge recalculated the balance due and determined that, rather than owing House of Flavors, Tetra was in fact due $156,399. The First Circuit dismissed House of Flavors' appeal, holding (1) the attack on the recalculated figure was foreclosed by a jurisdictional objection, as the appeal was untimely; and (2) the appeal was jurisdictionally timely as to the district court's refusal to award attorneys' fees under a Utah statute, but the denial of attorneys' fees was affirmed. View "House of Flavors, Inc. v. TFG-Michigan, L.P." on Justia Law