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

In 1998, Defendant was convicted of the Massachusetts crime of indecent assault and battery of a child under the age of fourteen. Defendant was notified of his obligation to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) but failed to do so. In 2012, a federal grand jury indicted Defendant of failing to register under SORNA. In 2013, the state district court vacated Defendant’s sex crime. Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss his federal charges on the basis that he no longer had a predicate sex offense to support a SORNA violation. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss and convicted him of failing to register as a sex offender under SORNA. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that SORNA’s registration requirement applies to defendants who are convicted of a sex offense, regardless of whether that conviction is later vacated, when federal charges have been brought for conduct before the vacation of conviction. View "United States v. Roberson" on Justia Law

Mother and Father had two daughters that were born in the United States. When the girls were four months and just over one year old, the family moved to Singapore after Father’s employer temporarily relocated him. The family lived in Singapore for approximately one year and a half, after which time Mother traveled with the girls to the United States and refused to return to Singapore. Father petitioned the federal district court for the return of the children pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The district court granted the petition, determining that the children’s place of habitual residence was Singapore, and therefore, Mother’s retention of the children in the United States was wrongful. The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded, holding that the district court erred in its habitual-residence analysis by failing to determine whether the parties intended to abandon their habitual residence in the United States or whether they intended to retain it while living abroad for a temporary period of fixed duration. View "Neergaard v. Neergaard-Colon" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted in Massachusetts state court of drug distribution and trafficking. While Petitioner’s appeal was pending in the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the U.S. Supreme Court decided Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. On appeal, Petitioner argued that his conviction must be reversed because the trial proceedings violated his federal Confrontation Clause rights as articulated in Melendez-Diaz. The SJC decided that there was a Melendez-Diaz error in this case but that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Petitioner petitioned for habeas review in federal district court, arguing that the state proceedings had violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Melendez-Diaz. The district court denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner could not show sufficient injury under the Brecht v. Abrahamson standard of review. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that under the highly deferential standard announced in Brecht, Petitioner failed to show the “substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the verdict required to set aside the SJC’s affirmance of his conviction. View "Connolly v. Roden" on Justia Law

Appellant, a Muslim and a native of Algeria, filed an amended complaint alleging that he was denied a promotion at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“Department”) based on his religion, race, and national origin. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee, the Secretary of the Department, concluding that Appellant failed to rebut the Department’s legitimate non-discriminatory reason for rejecting Appellant’s promotion. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded, holding that Appellant’s proffered evidence raised material disputes of fact that would allow a jury to infer that Appellant was the victim of intentional discrimination. View "Ahmed v. Napolitano" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to make false statements on a federal firearms application, three counts of gun possession by a previously convicted felon, and one count of marijuana possession. At sentencing, Appellant argued against the imposition of the four-level enhancement under the federal sentencing guidelines for possessing a firearm “in connection with” another felony. The district court imposed the enhancement, finding that Appellant had possessed a gun in connection with what the court described as felony “drug trafficking” rather than marijuana possession. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) in denying Appellant a judgment of acquittal on the marijuana possession count; and (2) in finding that Appellant possessed a firearm “in connection with” the drug-dealing offense. View "United States v. Matthews" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, her employer, pursuant to Title VII and analogous Puerto Rico law, alleging adverse employment action and a failure to hire on account of sex. After deliberations, the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff on both counts. On appeal, Defendant (1) sought a reversal of the jury verdict, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings; and (2) in the alternative, requested remittitur on the issue of damages. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim was unpreserved for appellate review; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for remittitur. View "Climent-Garcia v. Autoridad de Transporte" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that personnel at the Fort Buchanan Post Exchange Store in Puerto Rico had been negligent in failing to both prevent and clean up a spill on the floor, which Plaintiff slipped on, causing her to be injured. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the United States based on Plaintiff’s failure to establish Defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the spill. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that Plaintiff failed to carry her burden of making a clear and specific determination on negligence where Plaintiff did not establish that Defendant had either actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused her injuries. View "Calderon-Ortega v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection sometime in 1999 or 2000. In 2006, Petitioner was charged with removability. In 2011, Petitioner conceded removability and filed an application for withholding of removal, arguing that he would be targeted for extortion and violence by Guatemalan gangs because he had stayed in the United States for an extended period and thus would be perceived as wealthy upon his return to Guatemala. An Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s application, concluding that Petitioner had failed to show that he was a member of a particular social group and could not show a “clear probability” that he would likely be persecuted upon returning to Guatemala. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the Court’s past precedent, as well as with its own. View "Sam v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, came to the United States without a visa or other valid entry document. Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, asserting that she opposed China’s population control policy and would be forced to undergo involuntary sterilization if she were returned to China. After a hearing, an Immigration Judge found that Petitioner was not credible, denied all forms of relief, and ordered Petitioner removed to China. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the removal proceedings, which the BIA denied as untimely. More than seven years after her first untimely motion and almost twelve years after she was first ordered removed to China, Petitioner filed a second motion to reopen, alleging a material change in country conditions. The BIA denied Petitioner’s motion, concluding that Petitioner’s second motion to reopen was untimely and number-barred under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2) and not subject to any exceptions. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s petition. View "Lin v. Holder" on Justia Law

Appellant-property owner filed a Chapter 13 petition for bankruptcy and subsequently filed a third amended reorganization plan proposing to bifurcate Appellee-mortgagee’s claim into secured and unsecured portions. The bankruptcy court denied confirmation of the plan and ordered Appellant to file an amended plan. Appellant appealed and also filed a motion for leave to appeal the bankruptcy court’s interlocutory order. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) granted the motion and affirmed the bankruptcy court’s denial of confirmation. Appellant subsequently filed a notice of appeal and motion for certification of the appeal, which the BAP denied. The First Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the BAP’s order affirming the denial of the confirmation did not appear to be a final order. The First Circuit dismissed Appellant’s appeal, holding (1) an intermediate appellate court’s affirmance of a bankruptcy court’s denial of confirmation of a reorganization plan is not a final order if the debtor may still propose an amended plan; and (2) therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear this appeal. View "Bullard v. Hyde Park Savings Bank" on Justia Law