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

In 2023, Maine voters passed "An Act to Prohibit Campaign Spending by Foreign Governments" to prevent foreign governments and entities influenced by them from contributing to or influencing elections. The Act also requires media platforms to ensure they do not distribute communications that violate this prohibition, with violators facing civil and criminal penalties. Several companies and individuals, including Central Maine Power (CMP) and Versant Power, challenged the Act, claiming it violated the First Amendment. The district court granted a preliminary injunction against the Act, and Maine appealed.The United States District Court for the District of Maine granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the Act was likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court held that the Act's prohibition on spending by entities with at least 5% foreign ownership was not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. It also found that the definition of "foreign government-influenced entity" was overly broad and likely to stifle domestic speech regardless of actual foreign influence. The court declined to sever the unconstitutional provisions from the rest of the Act, reserving the issue for later consideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the Act's 5% foreign ownership threshold was not narrowly tailored and that the definition of "foreign government-influenced entity" was overly broad. The court also found that the Act's restrictions on contributions and expenditures were likely unconstitutional. The court did not address the issue of severability, leaving it for the district court to decide. The court also did not find it necessary to discuss the preemption determination in affirming the injunction. View "Central Maine Power Co. v. Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices" on Justia Law

José Miguel Guzmán-Ceballos was sentenced to ninety months' imprisonment for his involvement in transporting 385 kilograms of cocaine from the Dominican Republic to Puerto Rico. He pleaded guilty to all counts without a plea agreement and sought a mitigating role adjustment under § 3B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which the district court denied. Guzmán-Ceballos argued that he was merely a fisherman recruited for the smuggling operation due to economic hardship and had no significant role in planning or organizing the venture.The District Court of Puerto Rico held a change-of-plea hearing where Guzmán-Ceballos pleaded guilty. At the sentencing hearing, he objected to the presentence report (PSR) for not applying the mitigating role adjustment. The district court denied his objection, adopted the PSR's recommendations, and sentenced him to ninety months' imprisonment, noting it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and his role in the offense. Guzmán-Ceballos timely appealed, arguing the district court failed to conduct the necessary legal analysis for the mitigating role adjustment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with Guzmán-Ceballos. The court found that the district court did not engage in the required four-part analysis to determine his role in the offense. Specifically, the district court failed to identify the universe of participants, order them along a continuum of culpability, and compare Guzmán-Ceballos's role to the average participant using the § 3B1.2 factors. The appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, instructing the district court to perform the correct mitigating role analysis. View "United States v. Ceballos" on Justia Law

In January 2018, Nycole Amaury Rosario Sánchez, then fifteen years old, and six accomplices committed a series of violent crimes in Puerto Rico, including three robberies, two carjackings, and four murders. Rosario brandished and discharged firearms during these crimes, resulting in multiple injuries and deaths. He was arrested on January 25, 2018, and agreed to be prosecuted as an adult. Rosario pleaded guilty to six counts, including interference with commerce by robbery, carjacking, and using a firearm during a crime of violence causing murder.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico sentenced Rosario to 480 months' imprisonment. Rosario appealed, arguing that the district court failed to consider mitigating factors such as his age, mental and emotional condition, and the sentencing disparity between him and his co-defendants. He also claimed that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court had considered Rosario's age, mental and emotional condition, and other mitigating factors, as evidenced by the sentencing transcript and the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). The court also noted that Rosario's co-defendants were sentenced by a different judge and that Rosario had not provided sufficient information to establish an unwarranted sentencing disparity.The First Circuit held that the district court did not commit procedural error in its consideration of the section 3553(a) factors or in addressing the sentencing disparity. The court also found that Rosario's sentence was substantively reasonable, given the seriousness of his offenses and his behavior while incarcerated. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed Rosario's 480-month sentence. View "United States v. Rosario Sanchez" on Justia Law

Thiago de Souza Prado was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft. The scheme involved defrauding rideshare and food delivery companies by creating and using fraudulent accounts, and misappropriating the identities of third parties. Prado, who was ineligible to drive for these companies due to numerous driving infractions and his unauthorized status in the U.S., initially used fraudulent accounts created by others and later began creating and renting out his own fraudulent accounts. He obtained driver's license images and Social Security numbers from various sources, including associates and the dark web, and used software to spoof GPS information to inflate driver fees and generate fake referral rewards.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts sentenced Prado to seventy months in prison. Prado appealed, challenging his convictions and sentence. He argued that he was prejudiced by an amendment to the third superseding indictment during trial and by the district court's refusal to disqualify the prosecution team. He also contended that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no error in the district court's decision to allow the amendment of the indictment, as it did not alter the substance of the charges. The court also upheld the district court's finding that the wall separating Levy, a former defense attorney who joined the U.S. Attorney's Office, from the prosecution team had not been breached. Additionally, the court determined that any potential errors in calculating loss and Prado's criminal history were harmless, as the district court indicated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless.The First Circuit affirmed Prado's convictions and sentence, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that Prado's sentence was reasonable. View "United States v. De Souza Prado" on Justia Law

In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a surge in demand for personal protective equipment (PPE). Bay Promo, LLC, a merchandise supplier, sought to profit by supplying PPE to various entities. Arely Nicolle Moncada Alaniz, a college student, was brought in to assist. Disputes arose over who was responsible for securing lucrative contracts, leading to litigation.The case was first heard in the Massachusetts Federal District Court. After a two-day bench trial, the court found that Bay Promo breached a contract, entitling Moncada to a commission on one PPE order. However, the court denied Moncada's claims for commissions on nine other orders, determining there was no agreement for those commissions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Bay Promo argued that the district court erred in its breach of contract finding and in admitting certain evidence. Moncada contended she was entitled to commissions on all orders and sought equitable relief. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's evidentiary rulings and upheld the factual findings that Bay Promo breached the contract by failing to deliver FDA-approved masks on time. The court also agreed that Moncada did not establish new contracts for additional commissions and was not entitled to equitable relief.The First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Moncada was only entitled to a commission on the initial PPE order and not on subsequent orders. View "Moncada Alaniz v. Bay Promo, LLC" on Justia Law

Carlos Reyes-Rosario was convicted of five federal offenses related to a drug trafficking conspiracy in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The indictment charged him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a protected location, and possession with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine base, cocaine, and marijuana within 1,000 feet of a protected location. He was also charged with possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime but was acquitted of this charge. Reyes was sentenced to concurrent terms of 168 months for four counts and 120 months for one count.Reyes filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence for his convictions, particularly for Count Two, which involved aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute heroin. The District Court denied his motion, finding sufficient evidence for the jury to convict him based on his involvement in the conspiracy and the actions of his co-conspirators under the Pinkerton doctrine. Reyes appealed, challenging the denial of his motion for acquittal, the admission of certain evidence, and the reasonableness of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the District Court's decision, finding that the evidence presented at trial, including testimony and video recordings, was sufficient to support Reyes's conviction under the Pinkerton doctrine. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the admission of the video and items seized during the search, as they were properly authenticated by a cooperating witness. Additionally, the court rejected Reyes's Confrontation Clause challenges, noting that he had ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness about relevant topics.The First Circuit affirmed the District Court's rulings, including the denial of Reyes's motion for acquittal and the admission of evidence. The court also found Reyes's sentence to be procedurally and substantively reasonable, as the District Court had adequately considered the relevant factors and provided a sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed. View "United States v. Reyes-Rosario" on Justia Law

Derek Capozzi was convicted in 1999 on three counts: possession of a firearm as a felon, attempted extortion, and use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement, resulting in a 360-month sentence. Capozzi's direct appeal was unsuccessful, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case. In 2005, Capozzi filed his first motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his prior convictions should not count as ACCA predicates. The district court denied the motion, finding that the presentence report indicated his prior convictions involved buildings, qualifying them as ACCA predicates.In 2015, Capozzi sought permission to file a second § 2255 motion based on the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, which invalidated the ACCA's residual clause. The district court granted the motion in part, vacating his firearm-in-furtherance conviction but denying his Johnson II claim, reasoning that the ACCA enhancement was not based solely on the residual clause. Capozzi appealed, arguing that the district court had jurisdiction to hear his Johnson II claim and that it erred in not conducting a resentencing hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Capozzi could not establish a Johnson II claim because his sentence was not based solely on the residual clause. The court found that the district court had relied on the enumerated clause, which was not invalidated by Johnson II. Consequently, Capozzi's claim was time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in opting to correct Capozzi's sentence without conducting a de novo resentencing. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Capozzi" on Justia Law

Orlando Miguel Martínez-Ramos pleaded guilty to carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury and aiding and abetting the same, following a home invasion, robbery, and brutal physical attack on a 77-year-old woman who died nine days later. The advisory guideline sentencing range was up to fourteen years, but Martínez-Ramos acknowledged that an upward variance was warranted due to the victim's death. At sentencing, Martínez-Ramos argued for a fifteen-year sentence, while the government requested sixteen years.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico did not accept either recommendation. Instead, it considered a higher advisory guideline range based on the first-degree murder cross-reference, which would have recommended a life sentence, reduced to twenty-five years due to the statutory maximum. However, the court did not apply this cross-reference, citing insufficient causation evidence and the belief that a twenty-five-year sentence was too harsh given Martínez-Ramos's youth. The court imposed an eighteen-year sentence, a substantial upward variance from the guideline range, due to the physical attack contributing to the victim's death.Martínez-Ramos appealed, arguing that the upward variance was substantively unreasonable and that the court applied too lenient a standard of causation. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Martínez-Ramos had acknowledged the victim's death as a factor in his plea agreement and that the autopsy listed facial and bodily trauma as contributory factors to the death. The court concluded that the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous and affirmed the eighteen-year sentence. View "United States v. Martinez-Ramos" on Justia Law

Richard Evans, a former Captain in the Boston Police Department (BPD), was convicted of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, federal programs theft, and conspiracy to commit federal programs theft. These charges stemmed from his submission of false claims for overtime pay and his involvement in a scheme to submit such claims. Evans and his subordinates falsely reported working four-hour overtime shifts, even when they worked fewer hours or when the Evidence Control Unit (ECU) was closed.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found Evans guilty on all counts after a five-day jury trial. He was sentenced to one year and one day of incarceration for each count, to be served concurrently, fined $15,000, and ordered to pay $17,390.99 in restitution. Evans appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the willful blindness instruction, and other aspects of the trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Evans' convictions for wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, finding that the willful blindness instruction was appropriate given the numerous "flags of suspicion" that Evans ignored. However, the court vacated Evans' convictions for federal programs theft and conspiracy to commit federal programs theft, concluding that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the BPD received more than $10,000 in federal benefits during the relevant period, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 666(b). The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "United States v. Evans" on Justia Law

In 2016, Tucker Cianchette secured a multimillion-dollar judgment in Maine Superior Court against his father, step-mother, and two LLCs after they backed out of a 2015 agreement that would have given him sole control of a Ford dealership. Following this, in 2021, Eric and Peggy Cianchette, along with Cianchette Family, LLC, and Better Way Ford, LLC, filed a lawsuit alleging that Ford Motor Company violated state and federal laws during the failed 2015 negotiations and through false testimony by Ford employees in Tucker's 2016 suit.The 2021 lawsuit was initially filed in Maine Superior Court but was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Maine. The District Court dismissed all claims against Ford, leading the plaintiffs to appeal. The plaintiffs argued that Ford's actions during the 2015 negotiations and the 2016 lawsuit constituted violations of Maine's civil perjury statute, the Dealers Act, the federal Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act, and also amounted to breach of contract and tortious interference with contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that Ford made any false representations or that any reliance on such representations was justified. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claims under the Dealers Act were barred by res judicata due to a prior ruling by the Maine Motor Vehicle Franchise Board. Additionally, the court concluded that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing did not apply to the breach of contract claims under Michigan law, as the SSA explicitly granted Ford the right to approve changes in ownership. View "Better Way Ford, LLC v. Ford Motor Company" on Justia Law