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

Police received a tip that Howard, a suspected gang member with an outstanding arrest warrant for armed assault with intent to murder, was at a specific house. Officers knocked, announcing themselves as police, and demanded entry. The door was opened by Knowles, who lived with her son, a friend of Howard’s. Howard was spotted by officers in the yard, peering out a bathroom window. They found Howard in the basement. Once he was arrested, Knowles signed consent to search. In the bathroom where Howard had been spotted, officers found a cell phone containing pictures of Howard; a burning cigarette, with Howard's DNA; and, in the toilet tank, a loaded semiautomatic handgun and a bag of individually wrapped crack cocaine rocks. In the kitchen, officers discovered another bag of cocaine rocks and digital scales. After denial of a motion to suppress, Howard was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). He was sentenced to 13 years and three months. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the search, sufficiency of the evidence, and jury instructions. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

Cham, a Muslim and a native of The Gambia, immigrated to the U.S. in 2000 and began work in May, 2003, at a gas station/ convenience store. In December, 2004, Cham was injured in a car accident and informed his supervisor that he was taking Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601, leave on his doctor's recommendation. When Cham returned to work, he was consistently scheduled to work only 32 hours per week, although his actual work hours fluctuated. Cham claimed this was retaliation for taking FMLA leave and in violation of Title VII. Cham quit in May 2005, days after suffering a panic attack at work that sent him to an emergency room. The district court granted defendant judgment as a matter of law on the Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, disparate treatment claim. A jury awarded $20,000 on the FMLA retaliation claim. The court granted a new trial, stating that prejudicial evidence had been introduced, relevant to the hostile work environment claim, which had been voluntarily dismissed, that was irrelevant to the FMLA retaliation claim. After a second trial, the court entered judgment for defendants. The First Circuit affirmed. View "Cham v. Station Operators, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1998, Holmes pled guilty to second-degree murder and received a sentence of life in prison, the mandatory sentence. Mass. G.L. ch. 265, 2. Holmes claims that he pled guilty because his attorney, Graham, told him that the prosecutor had proposed that if Holmes entered the plea and if the prosecutor wanted information from Holmes, Holmes would be able to reduce his sentence by filing a Motion to Revise or Revoke. Holmes filed the Rule 29 motion, but did not identify any grounds. The motion was futile; the trial judge had no discretion in sentencing. In 2000, Holmes filed pro se a motion to withdraw the plea, alleging that Graham was constitutionally ineffective. Graham stated that he had advised Holmes to accept the plea because there was significant risk of a first degree murder conviction. In 2004, Holmes filed an amended motion, claiming that he would not have pled guilty had he known that the Rule 29 Motion would have been futile. After successive denials Holmes filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely. The First Circuit remanded for consideration of whether the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. View "Holmes v. Spencer," on Justia Law

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400-1491, requires that students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment possible. Sebastian, born in 1986, has mental retardation and began receiving special education services when he was three years old. Every year the school district developed an individualized education plan for him; he has received vocational and personal care education in addition to basic academic education and has had a variety of work experiences. Although he had visual-motor and visual-spatial deficits, as well as deficits in receptive language skills, he made steady progress. When he was 20 years old, his parents became dissatisfied with his public education and placed him in a private residential facility. An administrative hearing officer determined that Sebastian's parents were not entitled to recover the costs of Sebastian's private education, and the district court affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, finding the services offered by the district adequate. View "M.v. King Philip Reg'l Sch." on Justia Law

Officers searched a home inhabited by Clark and her adult son, Matthew. The warrant, issued the previous day, authorized a search for evidence of animal cruelty and unlicensed operation of a breeding kennel. Officers entered the Matthew's bedroom. Near a computer work station, they saw a list of web sites with titles suggestive of child pornography and nude photographs appearing to depict underage males. The officers immediately halted their search and obtained a supplementary warrant that authorized a search for child pornography. Officers seized evidence that formed the basis for indictment of Matthew for possessing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A (a)(5)(B). The trial judge rejected an argument that the first warrant was defective because the affidavit submitted with the application did not make out probable cause to believe that evidence of animal cruelty or an unlicensed kennel would be found and that the second search would not have occurred but for the evidence uncovered during the initial (illegal) search. The court relied on defendant's two prior convictions for indecent acts involving children as a basis for an offense-level enhancement and sentenced him to a 210-month term (the bottom of the guideline sentencing range). The First Circuit affirmed the conviction and the sentence. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former directory-advertising sales representatives for Idearc were discharged in 2007. Each was older than 40 and each had at least 18 years of service. Idearc claimed they were let go for poor performance; the employees alleged that the terminations were motivated by age discrimination (Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621) and a desire to negate pension benefits (Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1140,). They also advanced a retaliation claim. The district court rejected all of their claims. The First Circuit affirmed, noting the company’s performance-based standards. Idearc’s 2002 collective bargaining agreement authorized Idearc to terminate underperforming employees as specified by the plan. Employees were ranked within six-month periods by "percent net gain," calculated by comparing a salesperson's revenues against the revenue produced by his accounts in the previous year. Idearc was permitted to terminate employees failing 4 out of 7 consecutive semesters, but no more than 7.5 percent of a peer group could be terminated in any given semester. View "Cameron v. Idearc Media Corp." on Justia Law

A substantial portion of Boston Scientific's sales in 2008-2009 were of cardiac rhythm management devices handled by a group within the company devoted to such products. In August 2009, Boston Scientific began an audit of CRM sales expense reports from recent trips of sales representatives who accompanied physician customers on tours of Boston Scientific manufacturing facilities; in September Boston Scientific received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, requesting information about contributions made by CRM to charities with ties to physicians or their families. Neither the audit nor the subpoena were initially disclosed to the public. After stock prices dropped, a purported class of shareholders sued for securities fraud, Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78t(a)), and associated regulations, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, alleging that statements made by the company were materially false or misleading. The district court dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed, noting other possible causes of loss and finding that plaintiffs did not establish scienter.View "In re: Boston Scientific Corp. Sec. Litigation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s employment was terminated after she exhausted 12 weeks of medical leave and did not return to work. The employer had received a certification of health care provider indicating that she was "not incapacitated" and was "able to perform [her] job" on a normal work schedule with "no heavy lifting." The district court entered summary judgment in favor of her former employer on her claims of retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601-2654, and disability discrimination in violation of Massachusetts law, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B. The First Circuit affirmed. View "Henry v. United Bank" on Justia Law

Defendants were employees of subcontractor that provided concrete for Boston's Central Artery/Tunnel project, the "Big Dig." The government charged that over nine years, the company knowingly provided concrete that failed to meet project specifications and concealed that failure by creating false documentation purporting to show that the concrete provided complied with specifications. Several employees, including defendants, were convicted of mail fraud, highway project fraud, and conspiracy to defraud the government. The district court calculated the guidelines sentencing range as 87- to 108-months incarceration, then sentenced defendants to six months of home monitoring, three years of probation, and 1,000 hours of community service. The First Circuit affirmed. The district court's explanation ultimately supports the reasonableness of the sentences, based on its finding that the loss amount caused by the crimes, the most significant factor in determining the GSR, was imprecise and did not fairly reflect the defendants' culpability. The court also found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the defendants' conduct made the Big Dig unsafe in any way or that the defendants profited from the offenses and considered personal circumstances. View "United States v. Stevenson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former trust employee of the Metropolitan Bus Authority of Puerto Rico, sued public officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a decision not to install him in a career attorney position in the MBA was politically motivated and was effected without due process of law, in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of the due process claim as to all defendants, finding that plaintiff was afforded adequate process, and affirmed dismissal of the First Amendment claim as to all defendants, save for defendant Delgado. Plaintiff's allegations of participation in the decision were speculative and inadequate with respect to all of the defendants except Delgado. View "Rodriguez-Ramos v. Hernandez-Gregorat" on Justia Law