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

Petitioner was convicted of a felony requiring his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed an order that Petitioner be removed. Petitioner petitioned for review, arguing that because Padilla v. Kentucky described deportation as a “penalty,” his removal violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment or related constitutional protections unless a court conducted an individual assessment to determine whether his order of removal was a proportional punishment relative to his underlying criminal conviction. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Padilla has not signaled a break from long-settled law that removal operates simply as “a refusal by the government to harbor persons whom it does not want,” not as a punishment within the meaning of the Constitution intended to acutely sanction a noncitizen for his underlying criminal conviction. View "Hinds v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, twenty graduates from medical schools outside of the United States, failed the Puerto Rico Medical Licensing Examination (the PRMLE), which made them ineligible to receive a medical license in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs filed this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action requesting injunctive relief and damages, arguing that the Puerto Rico Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline and eight of its officers (collectively, Defendants), in their official and individual capacities, violated Plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection rights by imposing an arbitrary passing score in the PRMLE. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no plausible basis for a claim of relief in Plaintiffs’ claims. View "Mulero-Carrillo v. Roman-Hernandez" on Justia Law

At 4 a.m. one night, Plaintiff broke into his estranged wife’s apartment to talk about their relationship. The woman reported the break-in and provided a description of the car Plaintiff was driving. Defendant, a police officer, began to follow Plaintiff. The pursuit led to a tussle, which led to Defendant firing two shots in Plaintiff’s direction. Plaintiff later filed suit against Defendant, alleging that Defendant had violated his Fourth Amendment rights and committed common law assault. The district court awarded summary judgment to Defendant on the grounds of qualified immunity and discretion act immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. View "Mitchell v. Miller" on Justia Law

In 2007, Petitioner was convicted in a Massachusetts state court of living off or sharing the earnings of a minor prostitute. In 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 in federal court seeking to invalidate his conviction on a number of grounds. The district court found against Petitioner on every claim and ordered the petition dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s habeas petition, holding (1) Petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim failed on the prejudice prong of the Strickland v. Washington standard; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; and (3) Petitioner’s final claim was waived. View "Logan v. Gelb" on Justia Law

In 2011, Defendants were convicted of, among other closely related charges, federal program bribery under 18 U.S.C. 666. The First Circuit vacated the convictions, holding that the jury had received improper instructions about what constituted “bribery” under the statute. The Court remanded for possible re-prosecution of the section 666 counts under that same indictment. Defendants filed two motions for acquittal on the section 666 charges, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the renewed prosecutions because (1) the jury acquitted on the related offenses in the earlier trial and necessarily found that the government failed to prove issues that it would have to relitigate in the new prosecutions, and (2) a line order that the district court issued and then corrected immediately after the First Circuit issued its mandate in the last appeal constituted a final and irrevocable order of acquittal on the renewed section 666 charges. The district court denied the two acquittal motions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendants failed to meet their burden of showing that the acquittals involving section 666 collaterally estopped the renewed, standalone section 666 prosecutions; and (2) the district court’s line order did not constitute an acquittal under the Double Jeopardy Clause, and thus double jeopardy did not prevent the district court from reconsidering it. View "United States v. Bravo-Fernandez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of tampering with a federal witness, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and related crimes. Because the acts for which Appellant was convicted resulted in the death of the witness, Appellant faced the death penalty. The jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court violated Appellant’s immunity agreement with the government when it insisted that, before a defense expert would be permitted to testify, the defense expert be informed a proffer made in an attempt to negotiate a plea despite the proffer being protected by direct-use immunity. View "United States v. Jimenez-Bencevi" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of wire and mail fraud. The district court calculated Defendant’s sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines at thirty to thirty-seven months but imposed a below-Guidelines prison sentence of twenty-six months. Defendant appealed, raising claims of error in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings with respect to a key witness and purportedly improper vouching by the government. Defendant also appealed his sentencing, claiming error in the application of an enhancement for violating securities laws and the loss calculation. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing, holding (1) none of Defendant’s evidentiary challenges had any merit, nor did any of his related due process claims; (2) Defendant waived his argument that the government improperly vouched for its case and its witnesses; (3) the district court did not err in applying the enhancement for violating securities laws; and (4) where the government confessed error as to the loss calculation, and the error was not harmless, a remand was required. View "United States v. Reda" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted of mail fraud, wire fraud, and misuse of a government seal, as well as conspiring to commit these crimes. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Defendants’ confrontation rights by admitting into evidence customer complaints and cease-and-desist letters from regulators; (2) did not constructively amend the indictment by admitting evidence of Defendants’ lies to the IRS; (3) did not err in instructing the jury on the elements of misuse of a government seal; and (4) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants’ request mid-trial to remove a juror for bias. View "United States v. Godfrey" on Justia Law

After a second jury trial, Defendant was convicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) there was no probable cause for his arrest, and therefore, the incriminating statements he made shortly after his arrest must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree; and (2) defense counsel’s failure to file a timely motion to suppress on those grounds constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s conviction, holding that trial counsel’s failure to file a timely motion to suppress amounted to constitutionally deficient performance, and Defendant was prejudiced as a result. Remanded. View "United States v. Mercedes-De la Cruz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The conviction stemmed from a search of Defendant’s apartment by police pursuant to a search warrant that resulted in the police finding a pistol and eight rounds of ammunition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, as the affidavit used to support the search of Defendant’s person and apartment was sufficient to establish probable cause; (2) the government met its burden of establishing the interstate commerce element of the felon-in-possession charge; and (3) the district court’s jury instructions concerning the interstate commerce element were not in error. View "United States v. Dixon" on Justia Law