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

Plaintiffs, property owners, filed an action against Defendant, a bank, alleging eleven counts of state law violations for Defendant’s decision to deny Plaintiffs’ application for a loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program and to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ home. The district court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, holding that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act, rescission, negligence, and promissory estoppel. View "MacKenzie v. Flagstar Bank, FSB" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in a Massachusetts state court, Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Massachusetts Appeals Court (MAC) affirmed. The federal district court granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus by reaching the merits of Petitioner’s arguments on its own without deferring to the state court decision as required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, concluding (1) the MAC did not adjudicate Petitioner’s due process claims as presented at trial on the merits, and (2) constitutional error on the part of the trial court was not harmless. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the petition for habeas corpus relief, holding (1) although the MAC did not expressly discuss Petitioner’s arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence under Chambers v. Mississippi, the MAC correctly rejected the argument on the merits; and (2) to the extent the MAC found in a footnote that Petitioner asserted on appeal a new third-party culprit theory of admissibility that was never raised in the trial court, review of the third-party culprit theory was procedurally barred. View "Hodge v. Mendonsa" on Justia Law

Defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess, possession of, and use of counterfeit access devices. Defendants appealed the denial of their motion to suppress evidence obtained in connection with the stop and search of their vehicle, arguing (1) law enforcement officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop; (2) the warrantless search of the vehicle and the ensuing search warrant obtained for the vehicle were not based on probable cause; (3) law enforcement violated the Fifth Amendment by failing to inform Defendants of their Miranda rights; and (4) evidence and statements obtained through the stop and interrogation should be suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the stop of Defendants' vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and accordingly, the warrant issued for the search of the vehicle was not tainted by an illegal stop; (2) Defendants could not object to the search or seek suppression of the evidence obtained in the search because they failed to establish they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle searched after the stop; and (3) the admission of statements obtained through the questioning of Defendants did not violate the Fifth Amendment. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Nigeria, entered the United States using a false name and fraudulently obtained visa. After the government commenced removal proceedings, Petitioner filed for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, citing fear of religious persecution. The immigration judge denied relief and ordered removal. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. The BIA denied Petitioner's motion to reopen, which added a claim for asylum, and his subsequently filed motion to reconsider. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for review his motion to reopen and denied Petitioner's petition to review his motion to reconsider, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion or err in its judgment. View "Saka v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, entered the United States illegally using a fraudulent passport. After Petitioner was charged with removal, Petitioner conceded his removability but filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's applications, concluding (1) Petitioner established that he had suffered past persecution in Albania due to his political sympathies and his ethnic background and was consequently entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, but (2) the government's admitted evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed, finding that the government's evidence of changed country conditions rebutted the presumption of relief raised by Petitioner's past persecution on political and ethnic grounds. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the evidence supported the BIA's finding of materially changed country conditions since Petitioner's departure, and therefore, the BIA did not err in denying Petitioner's applications. View "Ruci v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States illegally and was charged with removability. Petitioner conceded removability but requested relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The second time the matter was before the immigration judge (IJ), the IJ determined that Petitioner was not entitled to relief in any form. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal, concluding that Petitioner's applications for relief were governed by the REAL ID Act and that Petitioner was not entitled to relief from removal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the BIA (1) erred in determining the REAL ID Act applied to Petitioner's case, but the error was harmless; and (2) did not err in finding Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to asylum where he did not demonstrate that he had experienced past persecution or that he had a well founded fear of future persecution. View "Wu v. Holder" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in Portland, Maine, Defendant was convicted of illegally distributing a substance containing a cocaine base. The district court sentenced Defendant to twenty years incarceration, the maximum jail term allowed by statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction and the length of his sentence, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed Defendant's indictment to include Defendant's aliases; (2) the trial judge did not err by allowing evidence of previous, uncharged drug deals between Defendant and a DEA agent to be presented to the jury; and (3) the trial judge did not make erroneous findings of fact at the sentencing hearing and did not err in determining that the combination of drug quantity and sentence enhancements translated to a sentence that conformed with the statutory maximum. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, was charged with being subject to removal. Petitioner conceded removability. Petitioner subsequently submitted an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, which the immigration judge denied. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner later moved to reopen his case, citing changed country conditions and claiming that he would be targeted for persecution on account of his religion. The BIA denied Petitioner's motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's motion for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for any form of relief. View "Wu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with aiding and abetting the depredation of federal property resulting in damage in excess of $20,000. Specifically, Appellant and two other defendants were accused of approaching the local office of the FBI and causing damage to an air conditioning system. An FBI agent estimated the property loss at $24,000. Appellant pled guilty to the charge pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court sentenced Appellant to serve a term of imprisonment and ordered Appellant to pay his pro rata share of the property damage in restitution. Appellant appealed, claiming that the district court's $8,000 restitution order was not supported by reliable evidence and that the district court failed to consider his financial resources when imposing the restitution order. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly relied upon the $24,000 loss-amount figure in fashioning its restitution order; and (2) Appellant's second claim was without merit. View "United States v. Sanchez-Maldonado" on Justia Law

Defendants in this consolidated appeal were gang members who were involved in a deadly drug conspiracy in Puerto Rico. Each Defendant was indicted for conspiring to possess and distribute illegal drugs within 1,000 feet of a public-housing facility, and three of the five defendants were indicted for aiding and abetting the use or carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a drug crime or the possession of a firearm in furtherance of that crime. After a jury trial, each defendant was essentially found guilty as charged. Only one defendant was found not guilty of participating in drug-related conspiracy activities within 1,000 feet of a public-housing project. Defendants' appeals raised numerous issues, which the First Circuit Court of Appeals sorted out person by person. In summary, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in all respects, holding that Defendants were "lawfully tried, convicted, and sentenced." View "United States v. Acosta-Colon" on Justia Law