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

A group of Nantucket residents, organized as Nantucket Residents Against Turbines, challenged the approval of the Vineyard Wind project by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The project involves the construction of a wind power facility off the coast of Massachusetts. The residents alleged that the federal agencies violated the Endangered Species Act by concluding that the project's construction would not jeopardize the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. They also claimed that BOEM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by relying on a flawed analysis by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which granted summary judgment in favor of the federal agencies. The court found that NMFS and BOEM had followed the law in analyzing the right whale's current status and environmental baseline, the likely effects of the Vineyard Wind project on the right whale, and the efficacy of measures to mitigate those effects. The court also found that the agencies' analyses rationally supported their conclusion that Vineyard Wind would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The appellate court found that the lower court had correctly interpreted the law and that the federal agencies had not violated the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. The court concluded that the agencies' analyses were rational and that their conclusion that the Vineyard Wind project would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale was supported by the evidence. View "Nantucket Residents Against Turbines v. U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2020, amid pandemic mask mandates and nationwide racial justice protests, Whole Foods Market, Inc. began disciplining employees who wore facemasks to work supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, citing its dress code. The three plaintiff-appellants, Savannah Kinzer, Haley Evans, and Christopher Michno, persisted in wearing these masks, among taking other actions, until the company terminated them, ostensibly for repeated violations of the dress code or attendance policy. The Employees sued under Title VII, alleging retaliation. The district court granted Whole Foods' motion for summary judgment against all three.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that summary judgment was improper against one of the Employees, Savannah Kinzer, an outspoken critic of Whole Foods whose termination arguably deviated from the company's disciplinary process, but affirmed the court's holding as to both Haley Evans and Christopher Michno. The Employees also asked the court to review a discovery order compelling the production of communications whose confidentiality they argue is protected by the National Labor Relations Act. The court declined to reach the merits of that issue. View "Kinzer v. Whole Foods Market, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Jennifer Root Bannon, who sued six law enforcement officers and the City of Boston on behalf of her brother's estate. Her brother, Juston Root, was fatally shot by the officers after a series of events that began with him pointing a gun at a hospital security guard and a responding police officer, leading the officers on a high-speed chase, and disregarding police instructions to drop his weapon. Bannon claimed that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances during the fatal shooting and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and affirmed the grant of summary judgment on Bannon's other claims. The court found that no reasonable jury could conclude that the officers acted unreasonably in employing deadly force against Root in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court also independently concluded that the officers were entitled to summary judgment on Bannon's § 1983 and MCRA claims based on qualified immunity. View "Bannon v. Godin" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Carlos Rubén Boyrie-Laboy, a Puerto Rico Police officer, who was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 371, and 641 for his involvement in a conspiracy to commit robbery and theft of government property. Boyrie-Laboy was part of the Humacao Drugs Division, responsible for seizing illegal weapons, drugs, and other contraband. In 2015, Officer Gabriel Maldonado-Martínez joined the division and began working with Boyrie-Laboy. Maldonado-Martínez later became an undercover FBI informant to identify corrupt police officers. Boyrie-Laboy was involved in two thefts of fireworks and was present during two FBI operations designed to catch corrupt officers. However, he did not accept any stolen goods or money from these operations.The government indicted Boyrie-Laboy and three other officers based on these activities. Boyrie-Laboy was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, conspiracy to steal and convert government property, and theft and conversion of government property. He proceeded to a five-day jury trial, where the jury found him guilty on all counts. Boyrie-Laboy appealed the convictions, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support them.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Boyrie-Laboy's counsel had declined the opportunity to move for a judgment of acquittal twice during the trial and did not make a post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal. As a result, the court applied the "clear and gross injustice" standard of review. The court found that the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's findings and that upholding Boyrie-Laboy's convictions did not result in a clear and gross injustice. Therefore, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Boyrie-Laboy" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Brendan Hoover, was struck in the head by a descending elevator gate while working at a Hyatt Hotel. He filed a lawsuit against Hyatt Hotels Corporation and Otis Elevator Company, alleging negligence due to the visibly worn-down condition of the elevator's rubber "astragal," which he claimed caused his injury. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Hoover's claim was based on unsupported conjecture.The district court granted summary judgment for Hyatt and Otis, holding that even if the contested expert evidence was admissible, Hoover failed to present anything other than speculation about an observable defect. The court did not rule on the admissibility of the expert evidence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Hoover failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim that the worn-down condition of the elevator's rubber "astragal" caused his injury. The court also noted that Hoover's expert witness did not provide an adequate foundation for a jury to find that Hyatt and Otis negligently failed to maintain the astragal, resulting in its mis-performance that caused Hoover's injury. View "Hoover v. Hyatt Corporation" on Justia Law

Daniel Richard Mahoney, a U.S. Navy veteran, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit after the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) denied his 2018 petition to upgrade his 1989 other than honorable discharge status. Mahoney served two periods in the Navy, the first from 1985 to 1988, which resulted in an honorable discharge, and the second from 1988 to 1989, which resulted in the other than honorable discharge. During his second period of service, Mahoney received several non-judicial punishments for unauthorized absences, drunkenness, and wrongful use of a controlled substance. He was diagnosed with alcohol dependency and received treatment, but continued to struggle with alcohol abuse.The BCNR denied Mahoney's petition to upgrade his discharge status, determining that he had failed to provide "substantial evidence" of "probable material error or injustice" to overcome the BCNR's presumption that military officers "have properly discharged their official duties." The BCNR concluded that Mahoney's PTSD did not mitigate the drug-related misconduct which led to his discharge.Mahoney then filed a complaint against Carlos Del Toro, U.S. Secretary of the Navy, in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, requesting judicial review of the BCNR's decision. The district court concluded that the BCNR's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law, and denied Mahoney's motions while granting Del Toro's cross-motion. Mahoney subsequently appealed to the First Circuit.The First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the BCNR's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law. The court found that the BCNR had reasonably determined that Mahoney's PTSD did not mitigate the drug-related misconduct leading to his discharge, and that his account of the positive urinalysis was not credible. The court also rejected Mahoney's argument that the BCNR had failed to apply the liberal consideration standard to his entire claim, finding that the BCNR had indeed applied the standard and had reasonably concluded that Mahoney's PTSD did not warrant changing his discharge characterization. View "Mahoney v. Del Toro" on Justia Law

The case involves Ricardo Perez-Delgado, who was sentenced to forty years in prison for his role in a violent robbery that resulted in the death of a businessman. The sentence was significantly higher than the guideline sentencing range (GSR), which had a maximum of thirty years and five months. Perez-Delgado appealed, arguing that the district court did not adequately explain its rationale for imposing a sentence nearly a decade over the top of the GSR.The district court had adopted the probation office's GSR calculation and considered the relevant statutory factors, Perez-Delgado's background, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the arguments of both parties. However, the court's explanation for the upward variance was limited to a single sentence stating that the recommended sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, protect the public from further crimes by Perez-Delgado, or address issues of deterrence and punishment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed with Perez-Delgado's argument. The court found that the district court's explanation was insufficient to justify the significant upward variance from the GSR. The court noted that the greater the variance, the greater the explanation must be. The court vacated Perez-Delgado's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, instructing the district court to provide an individualized explanation proportional to the length of the variance if it decided to upwardly vary again. View "United States v. Perez-Delgado" on Justia Law

The defendant, Heclouis Nieves-Díaz, was on supervised release for a federal drug conviction when he was convicted of possession of ammunition as a convicted felon, illegal possession of a machine gun, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He received an 84-month prison term for each conviction, to be served concurrently. His supervised release was also revoked, resulting in an additional 18-month prison term to be served consecutively to his 84-month sentences.Nieves had previously pleaded guilty to one count of drug conspiracy and was sentenced to 80 months of imprisonment and 96 months of supervised release. His term of supervised release was twice revoked. While on his third term of supervised release, Nieves was arrested following a search of an apartment where he was residing. The search yielded cocaine, marijuana, approximately 149 rounds of .223 caliber ammunition, and a device that could convert a Glock pistol into a fully automatic weapon.Nieves appealed his 84-month sentences and the revocation sentence. He argued that the District Court improperly calculated his Guidelines Sentencing Range (GSR) for each of the underlying offenses and that the court's application of a four-level enhancement was incorrect.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that the District Court did err in applying the four-level enhancement, as the record did not support the determination that the ammunition in this case had the required potentially facilitative effect. Therefore, the court vacated the District Court's sentences and remanded for resentencing. However, the court affirmed the revocation sentence, finding it both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Nieves-Diaz" on Justia Law

In 2015, Universitas Education, LLC initiated a lawsuit against Jack E. Robinson, III, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Robinson defended himself until his death in November 2017. After Robinson's death, the focus of the case shifted to finding a proper party to substitute as a representative of his estate. Universitas identified Lillian Granderson, Robinson's mother, as a suitable substitute and filed motions to substitute her into the case and to enter default judgment against her. The district court granted both motions.On appeal, Granderson argued that the district court erred in granting Universitas' motion to substitute and motion for default judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to substitute Granderson into the case, but vacated the default judgment. The court found that Granderson had defended the case and no entry of default had been entered against her, which was a requirement for a default judgment. The case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Universitas Education, LLC v. Granderson" on Justia Law

Edgar Centariczki, the defendant, pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine and fentanyl in 2021. He was sentenced to time served (two days) and three years of supervised release. His case was transferred to the District of Maine, where he resided. Between June and October of 2021, Centariczki tested positive for marijuana and cocaine multiple times and missed several probation office appointments. Despite warnings from the court, he continued to violate the terms of his supervised release, leading to his arrest in November. In January 2022, a revocation hearing was held due to multiple violations, including drug and alcohol use and failures to report to probation office appointments.The District Court for the District of Maine held a final revocation hearing in February 2023. The court calculated a guideline sentencing range of four to ten months, with thirty months of supervised release. However, the government advocated for an above-guidelines sentence of eighteen months' incarceration with no supervised release to follow, arguing that Centariczki had received multiple chances to seek drug treatment and yet continued to violate the terms of his probation. The court agreed and sentenced Centariczki to eighteen months' incarceration with no supervised release to follow.Centariczki appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, arguing that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court lacked a sufficiently above-guidelines plausible rationale for imposing an eighteen-month sentence. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the district court's rationale was plausible and its sentence was reasonable. The court noted that Centariczki's repeated violations of his supervised release terms and the multiple second chances afforded to him by the court and probation officer justified the above-guidelines sentence. The court affirmed the district court's decision. View "US v. Centariczki" on Justia Law