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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine and sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment to be followed by a supervised term of release. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in all respects, holding that the district court did not err in (1) permitting a non-expert witness to identify Defendant as one of the speakers in several wiretap recordings; (2) allowing the jury to receive the transcripts of those recordings; (3) allowing the government to introduce evidence about Appellant's co-defendants' unrelated drug activity; (4) declining to give the jury Appellant's proffered race and ethnicity instruction; (5) refusing Defendant's proposed jury instruction asking the jury to determine the drug quantity attributable to Defendant; and (6) finding that Defendant was involved with five or more kilograms of cocaine. View "United States v. Diaz-Arias" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of conspiring to commit wire fraud and committing wire fraud for his participation in a wire fraud scheme. Appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment followed by supervised release. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentences, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) the district court did not err in admitting files by an attorney involved in the real estate transactions that were the basis of Appellant's indictment; (3) the district court properly admitted evidence related to Appellant's involvement in two real estate transactions that were not the basis of his indictment; and (4) the district court properly sentenced Appellant. View "United States v. Appolon" on Justia Law

In 2010, the New Bedford district court entered a default judgment against Plaintiff, a resident of New Bedford, Massachusetts and an employee of the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department), in a suit filed by Law Firm to recover a consumer debt. In 2011, Law Firm brought a second suit in Attleboro district court seeking to collect on the default judgment by attaching Plaintiff's wages from the Department, via trustee process. Attleboro was one of the locations in which the Department maintained a usual place of business. In 2010, Plaintiff filed this action alleging that Law Firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act venue provision when it brought the 2011 Attleboro suit in a district other than the one in which she resided or signed the underlying contract. The district court granted Law Firm's motion to dismiss. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's claim was baseless in that it ignored Massachusetts trustee process law. View "Smith v. Solomon & Solomon, P.C." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possessing firearms as a convicted felon, possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, and using a stolen identity to purchase those firearms. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a third court-appointed attorney; (2) Defendant's waiver of his right to counsel was intelligent and knowing, and the court did not err in allowing him to proceed pro se; (3) the district court did not err in instructing the jury on the use of flight evidence; (4) the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's motion to suppress; and (5) Defendant's sentences on certain counts exceeded the statutory maximum. View "United States v. Francois" on Justia Law

Somascan filed suit against Philips Medical Systems, alleging that Philips had misrepresented the capabilities of the medical equipment it sold to Somascan and that the medical equipment did not meet the appropriate standards of quality. The federal district court set a deadline to amend the pleadings. More than a year and a half after the deadline, Somascan filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. The court denied the motion and later granted Philips' motion for summary judgment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion for leave to amend, holding that the district court acted correctly in denying leave to amend, as Somascan offered no excuse for not requesting leave to amend earlier, and no new evidence was alleged to have been uncovered. View "Somascan, Inc. v. Philips Med. Sys. Nederland, B.V." on Justia Law

Plaintiff applied for a special permit to open an adult entertainment establishment within an industrial district. By the terms of a City ordinance, adult entertainment was forbidden on sites within an industrial district. The City denied Plaintiff's application. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied Plaintiff's appeal for variances from the ordinances. At issue on appeal was whether the City's zoning ordinances violated the First Amendment by preventing Plaintiff from opening his adult entertainment establishment on land zoned industrial without providing an adequate opportunity elsewhere. The federal district court entered summary judgment for the City. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in calculating the land available to Plaintiff for adult use; and (2) the available land provided Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to open an adult business. View "Lund v. Fall River, Mass." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native-born citizen of the People's Republic of China, entered the U.S. without admission or parole. Six months later, Petitioner filed an affirmative application for asylum and withholding of removal, asserting that he and his wife conceived a second child in violation of China's one-child policy, and that as a result, his wife was subjected to a forced abortion. Petitioner later modified his asylum application, asserting that he and his wife were adherents of Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that is the target of a suppression campaign by the Chinese government, and that when his wife was pregnant with their child child, Chinese officials came to his home and hit him, and that he was forced into hiding. After a merits hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) denied asylum, finding Petitioner's claim as initially presented did not entitle him to asylum, that Petitioner's later assertions lacked credibility, and that Petitioner's lack of sincere belief in his practice of Falun Gong meant he was not entitled to asylum. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the IJ's findings regarding Petitioner's credibility. View "Liu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Appellants purchased nonrecourse notes (Notes) in the amount of two million dollars, issued by the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund (PRCTF). The Notes were not registered under the Securities Act based on an exemption from registration. The Notes later went into default, and Appellants sued Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR), trustee of the Notes, and Wilmington Trust Company (WTC), indenture trustee of the securities that the PRCTF purchased with Note proceeds. Appellants brought their suit in federal district court, premising their assertion of subject matter jurisdiction on the Edge Act and the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA). The district court dismissed the amended complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Appellants' suit did not arise under federal law. View "Calderon-Serra v. Wilmington Trust Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was hired by Employer in 2000 and began working as part of a five-person sales team. In 2009, Employer reduced the sales team to two employees and terminated Defendant. Plaintiff was fifty-five years old at the time. Plaintiff subsequently file a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), alleging age discrimination. MCAD dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for a lack of probable cause. Plaintiff then brought suit in state court, claiming age discrimination under Massachusetts law. Employer removed the case to the U.S. district court based on diversity jurisdiction. Thereafter, the district court granted Employer's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) in partially denying Plaintiff's third motion to compel; (2) in quashing deposition notices for three of Employer's employees; and (3) in granting summary judgment to Employer. View "Woodward v. Emulex Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant worked in a doctor's office in Maine first as a billing clerk and then as a billing manager. When Defendant began running the billing process on her own, she started carrying out an "upcode" scam wherein she bilked money out of payers like MaineCare, Medicare, and others by changing the codes to overstate what services had been provided, thus fetching higher payments. Defendant was later arrested and pled guilty to healthcare fraud. At sentencing, the judge enhanced Defendant's sentence under U.S.S.G. 3B1.3, which is appropriate if a defendant used a position of trust in such a way that made the crime easier to carry out or cover up. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the sentence and remanded because the sentencing judge did not explain the basis for his findings to the extent necessary to permit effective appellate review, and therefore, the Court could not confirm that an abuse-of-trust enhancement was inevitable on the record. View "United States v. Zehrung" on Justia Law