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

Defendant filed for bankruptcy. Defendant was later charged with bankruptcy fraud on the basis that she failed to include in the bankruptcy petition information related to her past fraudulent use of credit cards that she obtained under the names of two acquaintances, one of whom was Susan Blake. Defendant was subsequently convicted of two counts of bankruptcy fraud. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction as to Count One, which alleged that Debtor had knowingly and fraudulently failed and refused to disclose debts to three card issuers. The First Circuit held that Count One failed for lack of proof because the prosecution failed to establish that at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed, there were still extant claims held by the issuers against Defendant for merchandise or services Defendant secured through her use of the cards she procured using Blake's name. View "United States v. Marston" on Justia Law

Appellants were players in the Boston real estate market. Along with six coconspirators, Appellants devised and executed a mortgage fraud scheme which netted them illegal profits of nearly $2 million between May 2005 and June 2006. Appellants and their coconspirators were found guilty of one count of conspiring to commit wire fraud and with multiple counts of committing wire fraud. In addition, two defendants were found guilty of multiple counts of money laundering. The First Circuit Court Court of Appeals affirmed Appellants' convictions and sentences, holding, inter alia, (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Appellants' convictions; (2) the district court did not err by admitting into evidence four charts summarizing the financial data in this case; (3) the district court did not err in instructing the jury that it had a duty to return a guilty verdict if it concluded that the government had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4) there was no error in the district court's loss calculation methodology and none in its mathematical application of this methodology. View "United States v. Appolon" on Justia Law

At issue on this appeal was whether a petition for habeas corpus was timely filed within the one-year limitations period provided by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The district court found that Petitioner filed his petition within the one-year window because the running of the limitations period was tolled by proceedings in Massachusetts state court. However, the court rejected the petition on its merits. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, albeit on different grounds, holding that Petitioner's petition was filed well outside of AEDPA's one-year limitations period. View "Herbert v. Dickhaut" on Justia Law

The government charged Defendant with one count of interfering with the operation of an aircraft with reckless disregard for human life and one count of making false statements. After a jury trial, the jury found Defendant guilty as charged. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1001, vacated Defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 32(a)(5), and remanded, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction, as the government proved all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) a jury instruction erroneously diluted the mens rea requirement of section 32(a)(5), and the error was not harmless. View "United States v. Sasso" on Justia Law

Defendant Jose Romero-Lopez was convicted after a jury trial of money laundering offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 982. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding that there was no error in the district court's scheduling or evidentiary rulings, where (1) Defendant's due process rights were not violated when the district court advanced the scheduled trial date by one day; and (2) the district court did not err in allowing the prosecution to present evidence relating to (i) Defendant's tax returns and (ii) Defendant's activities and detention by federal authorities when traveling through the San Diego airport. View "United States v. Romero-Lopez" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed his conviction of conspiracy to commit a carjacking and aiding and abetting an attempted carjacking resulting in a death. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the government presented inappropriate overview testimony from a FBI agent at the outset of its case, but the error was harmless; (2) the government engaged in improper vouching in its closing argument, but Appellant failed to show the requisite prejudice, and therefore the error was harmless; (3) the district court did not err in denying Appellant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal, as the government presented sufficient evidence to support Appellant's convictions; and (4) the court did not err in applying the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2B3.1(c) "murder cross reference" in determining the guidelines range for Appellant's sentence. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Adorno" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a resident of Massachusetts, challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing claims she brought in November 2009 against the Cadle Company and its corporate sibling CadleRock Joint Venture II for unlawful debt collection under Massachusetts law. In November 2005 Plaintiff entered into a settlement with Defendants and furnished a release. Because the release was valid, at issue was whether, given the release of past claims, anything that occurred in or after November 2005 restored or gave rise to a claim by Plaintiff. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that because Plaintiff was essentially attacking Defendants' pre-release conduct in the present lawsuit, Plaintiff's claims, which ultimately depended on the wrongfulness of the original debt collection efforts, were without merit. View "Pilalas v. The Cadle Co." on Justia Law

Defendant entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a Union under which Defendant remitted contributions to an array of Union-affiliated benefit funds (the Funds). After the Funds commissioned audits of Defendant's books, the Funds demanded additional remittances for previously unreported work allegedly covered by the CBA. Defendant demurred, and the Funds sued Defendant. The district court awarded Plaintiffs $26,897 referable to covered work performed by a specific employee but denied recovery for other work. In a separate judgment, the court awarded Plaintiffs $34,688 in attorneys' fees. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the First Circuit, holding (1) the appeal was timely as to all issues, and the judgment on the benefits-remittance claim and the judgment awarding attorneys' fees were open to appellate review; (2) Defendant's failure to keep appropriate records concerning work covered by the benefit-remittance provisions of the CBA triggered a burden-shifting paradigm under which Defendant had to show which hours represented covered work and which did not, and here Defendant did not rebut the presumption; and (3) because the district court's fee calculation rested appreciably on the plaintiffs' lack of success in recovering remittances referable to unidentified employees, the fee award required recalculation. View "Int'l Union v. Ray Haluch Gravel Co." on Justia Law

This appeal involved an award of $59,787 in attorney's fees against unsuccessful plaintiffs in a civil rights action against the Municipality of Adjuntas, its mayor, and Plaintiffs' direct supervisors. Plaintiffs argued that their lawsuit was not so frivolous or unreasonable as to justify an award of fees to Defendants. The First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, except for one plaintiff's inferior working conditions claim and another plaintiff's claim against a supervisory defendant, as there was no reasonable basis for those claims. The Court vacated the fee award and remanded for further proceedings relating to any attorney's fees incurred by the Municipality of Adjuntas in relation to those claims only. View "Torres-Santiago v. Municipality of Adjuntas" on Justia Law

Two physicians who contracted with HMOs refused to accept capitation payments in place of fee-for-service payments, so the HMOs dropped the physicians' contracts. The physicians brought constitutional and antitrust claims against the companies, which the district court rejected on a motion to dismiss. The physicians appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because the appellees were not governmental actors, Appellants' constitutional claims failed; and (2) because the appellees that Appellants contended violated the Sherman Act were not independent firms and were, rather, wholly owned subsidiaries of the same parent company, the appellees could not have violated the Act's conspiracy prohibition. View "Gonzalez-Maldonado v. MMM Health Care, Inc." on Justia Law