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

Appellant purchased nonrecourse notes (Notes) in the amount of two million dollars, issued by the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund (PRCTF). The Notes were not registered under the Securities Act based on an exemption from registration. The Notes later went into default, and Appellant sued Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR), trustee of the Notes, and Wilmington Trust Company (WTC), indenture trustee of the securities that the PRCTF purchased with Note proceeds. Appellant brought suit in federal district court, premising his assertion of subject matter jurisdiction on the Edge Act and the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA). The district court dismissed the amended complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's suit did not arise under federal law; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit Appellant to file a delayed amended complaint asserting a new theory of liability because Appellant proffered no good reason for the delay. View "Nikitine v. Wilmington Trust Co." on Justia Law

This federal case sought confirmation of an arbitration award made at the first, non-liability stage of arbitration as to a contract, and which was filed approximately one month after the arbitral opponents had filed a petition in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance to vacate the same award. The underlying arbitration resulted from the non-renewal of a sub-distribution agreement between V. Suarez & Co. (VSC) and Bacardi Caribbean Corporation (BCC). The federal district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that an absent party, Bacardi Corporation (BC), was an indispensable party whose joinder would destroy complete diversity. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the federal district court engaged in an incomplete Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a) analysis, its conclusions under Rule 19 were wrong, and therefore, the proceeding should not have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) the federal court should stay its hand where the Court of First Instance confirmed the award and that decision had been pending on appeal in the court of appeals since August 22, 2012. Remanded. View "Bacardi Int'l Ltd. v. V. Suarez & Co." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted in Massachusetts state courts on two counts of unarmed robbery and sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen to twenty years' imprisonment. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, claiming newly discovered evidence. The appeals court affirmed the convictions but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the newly discovered evidence. Following the evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion for a new trial. The appeals court affirmed. Defendant then filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 federal habeas corpus petition in the U.S. district court, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and violations of his right to due process. The district court dismissed the petition because it contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration, as the record was inadequate to permit effective appellate review. View "DeLong v. Dickhaut" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. Defendant was sentenced to a ten-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment based on the trial court's finding that the crime involved eight kilograms of cocaine. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from him in Massachusetts when he left the scene of a drug deal because the agents arrested Defendant based on the strong likelihood that he had participated in criminal activity; and (2) the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant to a mandatory minimum sentence based on the court's findings as to drug quantity. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Appellant was a probationary public employee of the Town of Smithfield, Rhode Island. The Town hired Appellant on the condition that he obtain his building official certification. After Appellant failed to obtain the certification, the Town terminated Appellant. Appellant filed a complaint against the Town and its officials, alleging that he received insufficient procedural due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when his employment was terminated and that the Town violated the Rhode Island Constitution and Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Protection Act when it fired him. Defendants removed the case to federal court. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Appellant received constitutionally adequate procedural due process; and (2) the district court acted within its discretion in reaching and resolving the state law claims after ruling against Appellant on the sole federal claim. View "Senra v. Town of Smithfield" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who uses a wheelchair, was on the premises of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospital in San Juan when he was injured. After filing an administrative claim, Plaintiff sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that the VA negligently maintained the restroom in the hospital and that a loose toilet seat provoked his fall. The district court granted summary judgment for the United States, finding that there was no evidence to support that the VA had knowledge of the dangerous condition, the loose toilet seat. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) a rational factfinder could not conclude that the VA breached its duty of care in the circumstances of this case; and (2) the district court did not err in ruling on the summary judgment motion prior to the expiration of an extended discovery period. View "Nieves-Romero v. United States" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment and supervised release and ordered Defendant to pay $3,150 in restitution to a woman who was depicted in some of the child pornography materials found on a laptop that Defendant sold to a pawn shop. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the restitution award, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; and (2) the district court did not err in ordering Defendant to pay restitution to the woman whose abuse at the hands of her father at age ten or eleven was depicted in video found on the laptop. View "United States v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At issue on appeal was whether the sentencing court erred in applying a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice for Defendant's act of lying to federal agents in order to protect his girlfriend. The lower court found Defendant obstructed justice by making materially false statements to law enforcement officers, which significantly impeded the government's ongoing investigation and later prosecution of Defendant's criminal conduct. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant's lies plainly obstructed justice, and the district court acted appropriately in applying the challenged enhancement. View "United States v. Quirion" on Justia Law