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

In United States v. Eirby, the First Circuit held that the strict liability offense of engagement in a sexual act with a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old minor by a person at least ten years older constitutes a crime of violence and thus qualifies as a predicate offense under the career offender guideline. Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of gross sexual assault of a child under the age of fourteen. Appellant was twenty-nine years old at the time of the offense. After his release from custody, Appellant pleaded guilty to being a sex offender who had traveled in interstate commerce without registering or updating his registration. The district court found Eirby controlling and imposed a thirty-seven-month top-of-the-range term of immurement. Defendant appealed, arguing that the First Circuit should abrogate its decision in Eirby. Specifically, Defendant contended that a strict liability offense cannot be classified as a crime of violence in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Begay v. United States. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that gross sexual assault of a minor is categorically a crime of violence within the purview of the career offender guideline, and therefore, the district court did not err in its criminal history calculation. View "United States v. Velazquez" on Justia Law

A tractor-trailer was involved in an auto collision that caused serious bodily injury. The owner of the tractor (Owner) obtained primary insurance for the tractor through Old Republic Insurance Company (Old Republic). The operator of the tractor (Operator) obtained separate insurance through Stratford Insurance Company (Stratford). Old Republic filed suit against Stratford seeking a determination as to Stratford’s insurance obligations. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the Operator and Stratford never intended Stratford to provide primary coverage to the tractor, leaving Old Republic as the primary insurer and Stratford as the excess insurer; and (2) as to the question regarding Stratford’s duty to defend as an excess insurer of the tractor, the best course of action is to certify this question of New Hampshire law to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. View "Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Stratford Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was fired from his place of employment after his employer (Defendant) learned that Plaintiff had consistently falsified his time cards over the course of several years, costing the company “1.25 hours of labor per week.” Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that Defendant had terminated him in retaliation for taking family leave in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that because Plaintiff did not offer evidence of retaliatory animus sufficient to raise a disputed question of fact or to defeat Defendant’s right to judgment as a matter of law, Plaintiff did not meet his burden of proving that Defendant’s stated reason for his termination was a pretext. View "Ameen v. Amphenol Printed Circuits, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted in state court of murder in the first degree. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction. Petitioner subsequently filed several motions for a new trial in state court without success. Petitioner later filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in federal district court, asserting numerous instances of ineffective assistance of counsel at both trial and postconviction proceedings as well as prosecutorial misconduct. The district court denied the motion, concluding that all of Petitioner’s claims had been procedurally defaulted. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in holding that Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and prosecutorial misconduct had been procedurally defaulted; and (2) the claim of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel was not procedurally defaulted, but it was otherwise barred by 28 U.S.C. 2254(i). View "Lee v. Corsini" on Justia Law

This case involved the dispute over settlement agreements between AstraZeneca, which sells a heartburn drug called Nexium, and three generic drug companies that sought to market generic forms of Nexium. The named plaintiffs sued AstraZeneca and the three drug companies, alleging that the settlement agreements constituted unlawful agreements not to compete. Plaintiffs sought class certification for a class of third-party payors and individual consumers. The district court certified a class. Defendants appealed. After briefing, oral argument, and submission of this case, however, Defendants filed a voluntary motion to dismiss the interlocutory appeal. The First Circuit denied the motion to dismiss, holding (1) although some of the underlying issues in this case had been settled and a jury had reached a verdict on some others, the case was not moot; (2) a final draft of the Court’s opinion had already been prepared; and (3) Defendants may have been acting strategically by seeking to dismiss the interlocutory appeal. View "In re Nexium Antitrust Litig." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a town official for the town of Raymond, claimed that Michael Reynolds, a fellow town official, told the sheriff’s department that Plaintiff had driven while intoxicated, that the reports were false, and the false statements damaged his reputation. Plaintiff brought suit in state superior court, alleging state law claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy, as well as federal claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The case was removed to federal court on the basis of the federal claims. The district court dismissed the federal claims and proceeded to resolve the state law claims. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the dismissal of the federal claim; and (2) vacated the dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law claims as to Reynolds and remanded the claims to state court, holding the state law claims involved resolution of a potential conflict between Maine’s Anti-SLAPP statute and Maine’s Constitution, a conflict that “is best resolved by the Maine courts.” View "Desjardins v. Willard" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to failing to register in Puerto Rico as a sex offender. The district court sentenced Defendant and stated that any appeal had to be filed within fourteen days of entry of judgment. Defendant took no timely appeal from the entry of final judgment. Ten days after judgment was entered, however, Defendant filed a self-styled “Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence.” The district court denied the motion after the fourteenth day after judgment was entered. Defendant filed a notice of appeal purporting to appeal from both the judgment and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely, holding that Defendant’s failure to file a notice of appeal from his original sentence within fourteen days of the judgment of conviction doomed his appeal. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former officer with the Puerto Rico Police Department, was charged with multiple drug-related and firearm-related charges for his participation in fifteen drug transactions that were part of an FBI sting operation. The jury acquitted Defendant of all the firearm charges and the drug charges arising out of the first drug transaction and convicted him on all other counts. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by refusing to give jury instructions on entrapment and duress; denying Defendant’s proffered instructions on impeachment of witnesses for prior convictions; and denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial based on the trial court’s rulings and interjections during closing arguments. Lastly, the government’s remarks during its rebuttal argument did not render the trial unfair. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Perez" on Justia Law

AstraZeneca, which sells a heartburn drug called Nexium, and three generic drug companies (“generic defendants”) that sought to market generic forms of Nexium, entered into settlement agreements in which the generic defendants agreed not to challenge the validity of the Nexium patents and to delay the launch of their generic products. Certain union health and welfare funds that reimburse plan members for prescription drugs (the named plaintiffs) alleged that the settlement agreements constituted unlawful agreements between Nexium and the generic defendants not to compete. Plaintiffs sought class certification for a class of third-party payors, such as the named plaintiffs, and individual consumers. The district court certified a class. Relevant to this appeal, the class included individual consumers who would have continued to purchase branded Nexium for the same price after generic entry. The First Circuit affirmed the class certification, holding (1) class certification is permissible even if the class includes a de minimis number of uninjured parties; (2) the number of uninjured class members in this case was not significant enough to justify denial of certification; and (3) only injured class members will recover. View "In re Nexium Antitrust Litig." on Justia Law

Federal authorities instituted removal proceedings against Petitioner, a Chinese national. Petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, and an immigration judge (IJ) entered an order of removal in absentia. Almost a decade later, Petitioner moved to reopen his removal proceedings, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The IJ denied the motion to reopen as untimely. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Petitioner sought judicial review, which was interrupted by the First Circuit’s remand of the case upon a motion by the government for consideration of whether Petitioner qualified for relief based on changed circumstances in his homeland. The BIA concluded that Petitioner failed to present evidence demonstrating a material change in China’s country conditions since he was ordered removed. Petitioner then filed a new petition for judicial review. The First Circuit denied the petitions for review, holding (1) Petitioner was not entitled to an exception to the filing deadline due to lack of notice; (2) the IJ did not abuse her discretion in failing to apply equitable tolling; and (3) the First Circuit lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine Petitioner’s claim that the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding. View "Wan v. Holder" on Justia Law