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

The First Circuit dismissed the appeal in the underlying putative action removed from Massachusetts state court to the federal district court concerning a motion to compel arbitration, holding that the order was not a final decision and not within an exception that would permit interlocutory review.Plaintiff brought this putative class action alleging that Defendant, a debt collector, alleging violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A and 940 Mass. Code Regs. 7.01-.10. Defendant moved to compel arbitration in the state court, relying on an arbitration provision in the service contract between Plaintiff and the holder of the alleged debt Defendant was attempting to collect. The state court denied the motion, after which Defendant removed the case to federal court, where it filed another motion to compel arbitration. The district court treated the motion as a motion for reconsideration of the state court order denying the arbitration and then denied it. The First Circuit dismissed Defendant's appeal, holding that this was an improper interlocutory appeal. View "Powers v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress the seizure of his cell phone and its refusal to suppress evidence of child pornography, holding that the warrant authorizing the search of Defendant's electronic devices containing the child-pornography evidence was unsupported by probable cause.On appeal, Defendant argued that the police exceeded the scope of the first warrant by seizing his phone from his wife and that the application for the second warrant did not contain sufficient detail such that a neutral magistrate could determine whether there was probable cause that the alleged objects of the search were pornographic. The First Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings, holding (1) there was no violation of Defendant's constitutional rights in the seizure of his phone under the first warrant; (2) fatal deficiencies in the second affidavit supporting the second warrant resulted in the second search warrant being issued without the required showing of probable cause; and (3) the good-faith exception did not apply, requiring suppression of the evidence. View "United States v. Sheehan" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for attempting to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, holding that Defendant's first three challenges on appeal were unavailing and that his final argument was waived.Specifically, the First Circuit (1) did not err by declining to order the government to provide use immunity to a defense witness; (2) the district court did not err or undermine Defendant's entrapment defense in its evidentiary rulings; (3) the district court did not err in refusing to apply safety valve relief at sentencing after finding that Defendant failed to meet the safety valve's complete and truthful disclosure requirement; and (4) Defendant's remaining argument on appeal was waived. View "United States v. Munera-Gomez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Matthew Haney's complaint, brought as the Trustee of the Gooseberry Island Trust, against the Town of Mashpee and its Zoning Board of Appeals, holding that Haney's arguments on appeal were either waived or meritless.Haney brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Defendants' actions constituted uncompensated taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution due to an unconstitutional taking and the Massachusetts Constitution due to inverse condemnation. The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the claims were not ripe for review. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Haney waived his argument relative to whether the government had reached a final decision on the Trust's request for variances; and (2) Haney's remaining arguments were meritless. View "Haney v. Town of Mashpee" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court applying the so-called "turnover" statute, 18 U.S.C. 3664(n), in this case regarding the disposition of the funds held in Appellant's inmate trust account, holding that no additional fact-finding was required and that the turnover order was within the ambit of the district court's discretion.Appellant was convicted of distributing child pornography. As part of Appellant's sentence, the district court ordered him to make $18,000 in restitution to the victims of his crimes. During Appellant's incarceration the government learned that his inmate trust account reflected a balance of $10,956 and successfully moved for an order authorizing the Bureau of Prisons to to "turnover" Appellant's funds to be used as payment towards his outstanding restitution obligation. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the turnover order was valid and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the order. View "United States v. Saemisch" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court dismissing with prejudice Relators' qui tam suit brought under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729, against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and related entities (collectively, DePuy) alleging a fraudulent scheme involving hip replacement devices sold by DePuy, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.The district court dismissed this case with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failing to comply with multiple protective and court orders that governed Relators' use of confidential information. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by granting DePuy's motion for reconsideration and to set aside, amend, or later the district court's final judgment; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Relators had violated protective orders and in imposing the sanction of dismissal with prejudice; and (3) Relators were not entitled to relief on their remaining allegations of error. View "U.S., ex rel. Nargol & Langton v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc." on Justia Law

In this medical malpractice action brought against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671-2680, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of the government, holding that any error committed by the district court was harmless.Plaintiff, as the administrator of her father's estate, brought this action under the FTCA alleging that a suture used by medical providers on her father migrated from its intended location, leading to complications that ultimately caused her father's death. The district court found against Plaintiff on her claims. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred by failing to strike expert witness testimony that allegedly fell outside the scope of the expert's pretrial disclosures. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that any ostensible error in the admission of the expert testimony did not "substantially sway" the judgment. View "Duval v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming Petitioner's order of removal and denying his application for adjustment of status, holding that a conviction under Mass. Gen. Laws (MGL) ch. 269, 11C is not categorically a firearm offense, as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(c).Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, pleaded guilty in Massachusetts state court to defacing or receiving a firearm with a defaced serial number in violation of MGL ch. 269, 11C. The Department of Homeland Security later initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner charging him with removal based solely on his Massachusetts state court conviction. Petitioner moved to terminate the proceedings on the grounds that his Massachusetts conviction did not qualify as a removable firearm offense. The immigration judge sustained the removability charge and denied Petitioner's ensuing application to adjust his status. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the BIA's opinion and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that MGL ch. 269, 11C was facially overbroad when compared to its federal counterpart. View "Portillo v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity and sentencing him to thirty years' imprisonment, holding that there was no error in the underlying sentence.Defendant pled guilty to participating in two fraud schemes - business email compromise and online romance. Defendant pled guilty to his convictions. The district court applied two enhancements to Defendant's sentence - one for the unauthorized use of a means of identification unlawfully to produce another means of identification and another for the substantial financial hardship caused to one victim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in applying the sentencing enhancements. View "United States v. Iwuanyanwu" on Justia Law

In this case where Defendant was convicted of both cyberstalking and making interstate threats the First Circuit affirmed, as modified, the judgment of the district court ordering Defendant to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $72,112.62, holding that modification was required.Earlier, the First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence but left open the issue of restitution. The district court subsequently entered an amended judgment ordering Defendant to pay restitution. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) it was not clear or obvious error for the district court to rely on certain billing statements to support a restitution order; (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his arguments that the causal nexus for the restitution order was missing in this case; and (3) it was plain error for the district court to impose a restitution award that was "slightly higher" than the amount supported by the evidence, and therefore, the award must be modified to support a total of $68,041.19 in restitution. View "United States v. Cardozo" on Justia Law