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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1969. In 2008 and 2009, Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere in state court in two separate cases to possession of a controlled substance. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner as an alien convicted of violating a law relating to a controlled substance. Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal. An immigration judge (IJ) granted Petitioner's application for relief because of Petitioner's extended residency, strong family ties, and history of employment in the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated the IJ's decision, determining (1) Petitioner's second state conviction triggered the statutory bar against her application for removal; and (2) Petitioner failed to establish a claim for relief on the merits. On remand, the IJ entered an order of removal, and the BIA affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for review for lack of jurisdiction because it could not overturn a BIA's discretionary denial of relief, and any opinion it reached on Petitioner's statutory or procedural claims would be purely advisory and beyond the Court's authority. View "Ortega v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a sales representative who had CVS as a client at Allied Printing Services and at his subsequent employment at Strine Printing Company (SPC). While working for Allied, Plaintiff had surreptitiously helped to pay the car lease of a CVS employee. When CVS later learned of Plaintiff's role in the apparent kickback, CVS decided it would not do business with Plaintiff and asked SPC to remove him from the CVS account. SPC subsequently dismissed Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued SPC and its owner (collectively, Defendants) for contract, quasi-contract, and tort claims. The federal district court granted summary judgment to Defendants. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to establish that relief was warranted on his unjust enrichment, intentional interference, misrepresentation, and contract claims. View "Bisbano v. Strine Printing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, the jury returned a conviction finding Defendant guilty of wire fraud and mail fraud. The district court upset the conviction and ordered a new trial, concluding that the government's closing argument was improper and may have tainted the jury's verdict. When the case was retried, the jury again convicted Defendant of the charges. The district court again granted a new trial, determining that the government's different closing argument led the jury to convict on an improper basis. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the jury's verdict of conviction, holding that the government's comments in its closing argument at the second trial were not improper. Remanded for sentencing. View "United States v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a waiver-of-appeal provision. Appellant was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release pursuant to the plea agreement. For the first six months of supervised release, the district court required Appellant to comply with curfew and electronic monitoring conditions. Appellant appealed these conditions of supervised release, contending that their imposition amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that Appellant's knowing and voluntary waiver of appeal extended to the contested conditions and barred his instant challenge. View "United States v. Rivera-Lopez" on Justia Law

In this bankruptcy proceeding involving a turnover action and a revocation action, the bankruptcy court ruled (1) Debtor failed to maintain his profit-sharing plan in substantial compliance with applicable tax laws, which meant that assets in the profit-sharing plan and two IRAs funded with the plan assets were part of the bankruptcy estate; and (2) Debtor intentionally failed to disclose the existence of the two IRAs into which he had transferred assets from his profit-sharing plan, which ruling provided alternative grounds for treating the IRAs as nonexempt and provided the basis for the bankruptcy court to revoke Debtor's discharge. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both rulings, holding (1) the plan assets were not exempt from the bankruptcy estate; (2) Debtor indisputably demonstrated a reckless indifference to the truth of material information during his bankruptcy proceedings; (3) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Debtor's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief on the turnover judgment on the basis of newly discovered evidence and excusable neglect; and (4) the bankruptcy court did not err in granting summary judgment to the U.S. Trustee in the revocation action. View "Daniels v. Agin" on Justia Law

The United States filed suit against Kathleen Haag and her husband seeking to reduce to judgment federal income tax liabilities for several years. The district court granted summary judgment to the United States, concluding that Haag's claim that she was entitled to "innocent spouse" relief was barred by the two-year limitations period. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Haag eventually filed a fourth suit asserting that Lantz v. Commissioner had invalidated the two-year limitations period on requests for innocent spouse relief. The tax court and First Circuit held that res judicata applied. At this point, Lantz had been reversed, but the IRS had issued Notice 2011-70, which stated that taxpayers whose innocent spouse relief claims had been litigated previously and barred by the statute of limitations would not be subject to collection under certain circumstances. The First Circuit concluded that Notice 2011-70 did not apply to Haag. Haag then filed this complaint, arguing that Notice 2011-70 afforded her equitable relief from the judgment and that the First Circuit's prior finding to the contrary was mere dicta. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit affirmed, concluding, once again, that Notice 2011-70 was inapplicable to Haag. View "Haag v. United States" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, four former San Juan Municipal Police Department officers (Appellants) were convicted of several charges arising from the excessive use of force against a citizen who was beaten to death while in police custody. Appellants challenged their respective convictions and sentences on appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, ultimately finding none of Appellants' arguments meritorious. Among the various arguments advanced by Appellants was that the district court erred when sentencing one Appellant by using the less favorable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in effect on the date of sentencing rather than the Guidelines manual in effect at the time of the offense. The Court held that the "one book" rule of the Guidelines does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution as applied to a series of grouped offenses such as Appellant's. View "US v. Pagan-Ferrer" on Justia Law

In 2011, the FBI obtained a criminal complaint and warrant for Appellant's arrest. Several criminal charges were brought against Appellant, including sending letters to public officials threatening murder. The warrant was based on the use of a 2005 DNA profile of Appellant, which resulted in no charges against Appellant, that was used during the 2011 investigation and found to be a match to the DNA recovered from the threatening letters sent in 2011. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the fruits of the use of his 2005 DNA profile in securing the 2011 warrant. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant conditionally pled guilty to the charges and then appealed, arguing that the method of obtaining his DNA violated the Fourth Amendment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Appellant's motion to suppress, holding (1) the method of obtaining Appellant's 2005 DNA sample violated the Fourth Amendment; but (2) application of the exclusionary rule in this case would be outweighed by the resulting costs to the criminal justice system. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder in state court. Petitioner's conviction was upheld on appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court, asserting (1) the prosecutor improperly commented on his failure to testify in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney inadvertently failed to produce certain medical records to the prosecution during discovery, which prevented counsel from questioning the defense's witness, a psychiatrist, about them at trial. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) any error on the part of the prosecution was harmless; and (2) the omission of the records was not prejudicial, and whether or not Appellant's trial counsel made a strategic choice to omit the evidence this was not an error so serious that Defendant was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. View "Pena v. Dickhaut" on Justia Law

The City of Springfield enacted two local ordinances that imposed new legal duties on (1) property owners to maintain property during the foreclosure process and provide a $10,000 cash bond per foreclosure to the City, and (2) mortgagees to attempt a settlement through negotiations before foreclosing. In dispute was the definition of "owner" in the first ordinance, which included mortgagees who were not in possession and had begun the foreclosure process. The ordinance imposed the duties on the mortgagees whether the mortgagors were still in possession. Six banks sued in state court, seeking to have the ordinances invalidated as inconsistent with and preempted by comprehensive state laws governing foreclosure and property maintenance and as inconsistent with state and federal constitutional guarantees. The case was removed to federal district court, which concluded that the ordinances were valid. The banks appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals certified dispositive state law questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court because the outcome of the case depended on unresolved questions of Massachusetts law and raised significant policy concerns better suited for resolution by that state court. View "Easthampton Savings Bank v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law