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

The police, after seizing a cell phone from Defendant's person as part of his lawful arrest, searched the phone's data without a warrant. Based on information obtained from the cell phone, Defendant was charged with possessing with intent to distribute and distributing cocaine base and with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Defendant unsuccessfully filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search of his phone, and the district court subsequently convicted Defendant as charged. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress and vacated his conviction, holding (1) the search in this case exceeded the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment search-incident-to-arrest exception; and (2) because the government did not argue that the search here was justified by any exception to the warrant requirement, Defendant's motion to suppress must be granted. Remanded. View "United States v. Wurie" on Justia Law

Defendant, a thrice-convicted felon, and his confederates attended a backyard barbecue at which firearms were openly displayed. They subsequently reconvened at the scene of a planned robbery. The robbery was never consummated, but the police arrested Defendant on firearms charges. During the jury trial, the district court admitted evidence of Defendant's statements to the police about events occurring at the cookout. Defendant was convicted as charged. The First Circuit Court of Appeals, holding (1) the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knowingly possessed firearms charged in the indictment, and therefore, the district court correctly denied Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; and (2) the district court did not err in admitting Defendant's statements about the robbery scheme and his handling of the revolver at the cookout, as the evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to eight years' incarceration after she pled guilty to various crimes committed during her sixteen years on the run with wanted fugitive, James "Whitey" Bulger. Defendant challenged her sentence on appeal, claiming that the court erroneously calculated her base offense level on the conspiracy to harbor a fugitive count, incorrectly applied a firearm enhancement, wrongly utilized an obstruction of justice enhancement, and erred in allowing family members of Bulger's alleged victims to speak during sentencing. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) finding that Defendant's conduct was not limited to harboring Bulger and refusing to cap her offense level accordingly; (2) applying the firearm enhancement and the obstruction of justice enhancement; and (3) deciding to let the family members speak. View "United States v. Greig" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an employee of Defendant, filed claims against Defendant for unlawful employment retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff alleged that she was subject to several adverse employment actions that were taken in retaliation for occasions on which Plaintiff called attention to Defendant's purportedly discriminatory employment practices. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant, concluded that, as to the two aspects of her employment at issue, Plaintiff had neither established a prima facie case of retaliation nor shown that Defendants' stated rationales for their purportedly unlawful actions toward her were pretextual. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that no reasonable fact-finder could resolve the issues in Plaintiff's favor. View "Colon v. Tracey" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were five limited partnerships that owned multifamily housing rental projects in Maine. Plaintiffs entered into housing assistance payments (HAP) contracts with the Maine State Housing Authority (MaineHousing) in order to participate in the Section 8 program. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in conjunction with state and local public housing agencies. Landlords participating in the program receive partial rent from their tenants and the remainder of the rent from the relevant public housing agency, who is, in turn, reimbursed by HUD. Payments from state and local agencies to the Section 8 landlords are adjusted periodically according to guidelines promulgated by HUD. In 2009, Plaintiffs sued MaineHousing in federal district court for breach of contract, alleging that MaineHousing had wrongfully refused to grant them certain annual increases in their Section 8 payments. MaineHousing impleaded HUD. The district court granted summary judgment for MaineHousing and HUD. The First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that each of the housing assistance payments contracts at issue allowed MaineHousing to withhold automatic annual adjustments on contract rents where MaineHousing determines that further adjustments would result in material differences between contract rents and market rates. View "One & Ken Valley Housing Group v. Me. State Housing Auth." on Justia Law

Appellant received a life sentence for his role in a large-scale drug operation that sold heroin, crack, cocaine, and marijuana at a public housing project in Puerto Rico. Appellant pled guilty to several drug offenses at the end of the first day of testimony. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Appellant's sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge, holding (1) the imposition of a general sentence of life imprisonment on all counts when none of the crimes of conviction supported that penalty was improper, and the life term of imprisonment did not survive the plain error test; and (2) the district court erred in fixing Appellant's sentence by considering information obtained during an ex parte meeting with the probation department. View "United States v. Zavala-Marti" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, five kilograms or more of cocaine, one or more kilograms of heroin, and an undetermined quantity of marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. Defendant received a thirty-year incarcerative sentence. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for reduction of sentence. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded because the court's conclusion was not self-evident on the face of the record. In remanding, the First Circuit directed that Defendant could only be held responsible for those drugs he personally handled as well as "those that were reasonably foreseeable to him." The district court reaffirmed its ruling on remand, finding that the quantity of heroin distributed by the conspiracy was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant and in itself sufficient to support Defendant's sentence. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court's foreseeability finding and the drug quantity determinations underlying it were clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Candelaria-Silva" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an insurance company, filed an equitable action in the U.S. district court for Rhode Island seeking a declaratory judgment that a life insurance policy was rescinded ab initio due to the fraudulent misrepresentations of Defendant, an irrevocable trust. Plaintiff also sought to retain the premium paid by the trust as an offset against the damages it had suffered in connection with the policy. The district court (1) found that Defendant, by and through its trustee, had made false representations to induce Plaintiff to issue the policy and that this fraud caused Plaintiff damages that would not be fully compensated by rescission alone; and (2) allowed Plaintiff to retain the policy premium paid by Defendant. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err, under Rhode Island law, in allowing Plaintiff to both rescind the policy and retain the premium; (2) did not err in finding that Plaintiff was a victim of a fraudulent insurance scheme; and (3) appropriately exercised its equity powers. View "PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. Bowie 2008 Irrevocable Trust " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted in the District of Massachusetts of aiding and abetting the making of a false claim against the United States in connection with his 2008 federal income tax return. Defendant appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court's aiding and abetting instruction was legally correct in that it accurately conveyed the appropriate legal elements; (2) the aiding and abetting instruction did not constructively amend the indictment in violation of the Fifth Amendment; and (3) the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to sustain Defendant's aiding and abetting conviction. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

When Appellant's factoring business began experiencing serious financial troubles, Appellant allegedly defrauded a number of lenders to obtain more money to resolve her financial problems. After a government investigation, indictment, and five-day trial, a jury convicted Appellant of mail fraud. Appellant appealed her conviction, claiming that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the elements of mail fraud and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly focused its jury instructions on the necessary elements of a scheme to defraud and did not err in failing to give a specific unanimity instruction; and (2) Appellant failed to establish that prejudice resulted from defense counsel's performance, and therefore, she could not prevail on her ineffective assistance claim. View "United States v. LaPlante" on Justia Law