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

Appellant was charged with being a possession of a firearm and moved to suppress the firearm seized from him during a traffic stop. The district court denied the motion without a hearing, concluding that the seizure was justified under the plain view doctrine. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to reconsider and a second motion to suppress the firearm, requesting evidentiary hearings on both motions. After a non-evidentiary hearing, the district court denied both motions. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on Appellant's motion to reconsider and second motion to suppress. View "United States v. Cintron" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of willfully damaging federal property, creating a hazard on federal property, and creating a nuisance on federal property after he badly soiled a federal courtroom. Defendant appealed, arguing that because the regulations he was charged with violating were posted inside rather than outside the courthouse entrance, his conviction must be reversed pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 1315(c)(1) and a General Services Administration (GSA) regulation. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the regulations were posted in compliance with the statute, which requires posting of the regulations Defendant violated in a conspicuous place on the property; (2) while the GSA regulation specifies that the notice about the rules governing the building should be posted at the public entrance, the regulation does not provide that imperfect compliance with the exterior posting requirement nullifies a conviction for violating the prohibition; and (3) sufficient evidence established that Defendant had the mental state required for his conviction. View "United States v. Strong" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a nonbinding plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to participating in a widespread drug-trafficking conspiracy. The district court sentenced Defendant to serve eighty-seven months in prison. Defendant appealed, contending (1) his guilty plea was neither knowing nor voluntary because he was unaware that the court intended to impose a consecutive sentence, and (2) the district court's sentencing methodology was flawed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) because the consecutive sentence was not a direct consequence of Defendant's guilty plea, Defendant did not need to be informed at the time of his plea that the court might impose a consecutive sentence; and (2) the district court did not procedurally err in the construction of Defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Ocasio-Cancel" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm without a plea agreement. Defendant so pleaded without reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the firearm. Defendant was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (Act) to fifteen years' imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress, and therefore, the Court did not reach Defendant's argument that his counsel was ineffective for failing to inform Defendant of the consequences of not preserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion; (2) the police had reasonable suspicion to initiate a Terry stop in this case and acted reasonably in making sure Defendant was seized and handcuffed as part of the investigatory stop; and (3) the district court correctly found that Defendant qualified as an armed career criminal for purposes of the ACCA. View "United States v. Carrigan" on Justia Law

Appellant attempted to smuggle approximately $543,000 from Puerto Rico to the Dominican Republic. United States Customs and Border Patrol agents arrested Appellant and seized the cash, and Appellant was convicted after a jury trial of bulk cash smuggling and failure to report the export of currency. The cash used by Appellant was forfeitable to the United States as property used to commit a violation of the bulk smuggling and failure to report statutes. Instead of entering an order as part of Appellant's sentence specifying the forfeiture of the cash to the United States and authorizing the attorney general to seize the cash, the district court instead entered a series of orders and amendments resulting in the entry of a personal judgment against Appellant in the amount of the cash. Appellant and a third party, who claimed the cash belonged to him, both appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) remanded the third party's case, after which the district court found the third party had no cognizable interest in the cash; and (2) affirmed the judgment against Appellant, finding that the United States may retain the nexus property in satisfaction of the money judgment entered against Appellant. View "United States v. Zorrilla-Echevarria" on Justia Law

After Defendant sold crack cocaine to an FBI confidential informant, the police searched her home. Based on the evidence obtained from the search, Defendant was convicted of three drug-related offenses and sentenced to seventy-eight months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that her consent to the FBI's warrantless search of her home was secured by a false claim that a lawful, warrantless search of her home would be conducted without her consent. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction on two of the three offenses and vacated her conviction on the third, holding (1) the district court erred in failing to determine whether there were reasonable grounds to support the claim made to Defendant that a lawful, warrantless search of her home would ensue without her consent; and (2) admission of the results of the search at trial was not harmless as to one of the convictions. Remanded. View "United States v. Vazquez" on Justia Law

At the time of the criminal conduct at issue, Defendant was a twenty-nine-year-old physician and resident in psychiatry whose special interest was adolescent psychiatry. After pursuing a sexual relationship with a fifteen-year-old girl, two states charged Defendant with statutory rape and two courts ordered him to cease contact with the girl. Federal authorities took Defendant into custody when he continued to pursue the relationship. Defendant subsequently pled guilty to five federal charges. The district court sentenced him to 365 months' imprisonment followed by 360 months' supervised release. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding that, based on the facts on the record, the district court did not err in determining that Defendant's long stay behind prison bars was required. View "United States v. Batchu" on Justia Law

ROK Builders LLC (ROK) constructed a hotel for Moultonborough and had a mechanic's lien on the property. 2010-1 SFG Venture LLC (SFG) was the assignee of the construction lender and had a mortgage on the hotel. After Moultonborough filed for bankruptcy, SFG initiated an adversary proceeding against ROK in bankruptcy court, seeking a declaration that its mortgage was senior to ROK's lien to the extent the construction lender had disbursed loan funds to ROK. ROK, in turn, asserted that its lien was senior to SFG's mortgage. The New Hampshire bankruptcy court and district court entered judgment in favor of SFG. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 447:12-a established the seniority of SFG's mortgage over ROK's mechanic's lien to the extent of the amount of money the construction lender disbursed to ROK. View "ROK Builders, LLC v. 2010-1 SFG Venture, LLC" on Justia Law

Verizon New England, Inc. was a party to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with six electrical workers unions. After Verizon and the unions were unable to reach a new agreement before the CBA expired, the union members commenced a large-scale work stoppage. After the employees returned to work, several members of various unions employed by Verizon in Rhode Island applied for unemployment benefits. The Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training (RIDLT) denied unemployment benefits, but the RIDLT's board of review reversed. Verizon subsequently filed a federal court action against RIDLT and claimant union members, arguing that the board's decision to award unemployment benefits should not be enforced, as it was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The district court dismissed the complaint, holding (1) the NLRA does not preempt a state's ability to provide strikers unemployment benefits; and (2) the action must be dismissed under the Younger absention doctrine. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed but on the singular ground that the dismissal was warranted under the Younger absention doctrine. View "Verizon New England, Inc. v. R.I. Dep't of Labor & Training" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection. After the United State initiated removal proceedings against him, Petitioner applied for relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), alleging that he feared torture by guerrilla forces in Guatemala due to his father's military service and work in the civil patrol. The immigration judge (IJ) concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a threshold case for relief. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. Nine years later, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his application for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA denied Petitioner's motion, finding that he failed to demonstrate a material change in country conditions and failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA (1) properly concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a material change in country conditions necessary to reopen removal proceedings; and (2) did not err in finding Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum. View "Jutus v. Holder" on Justia Law