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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of thirty-three counts of wire fraud and five counts of money laundering arising from his role in a mortgage fraud scheme. The district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of seventy-two months’ incarceration and ordered restitution of nearly $2.2 million. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, except that it vacated in part the restitution order, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions as to twenty-eight of the wire fraud counts and all of the money laundering counts; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion as to three of its adverse evidentiary rulings; (3) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct in his closing argument; (4) Defendant’s seventy-two month sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable; and (5) the district court erred in calculating restitution. Remanded. View "United States v. Foley" on Justia Law

This appeal was the third time the First Circuit opined on United States’ prosecution of Defendant for mail and wire fraud. The Court first affirmed a district court order setting aside a jury verdict of guilty in favor of a new trial. After a second jury also found Defendant guilty, the Court reversed a district court order setting aside that verdict and remanded for sentencing. Here, the Court considered Defendant’s argument on direct appeal that the lengthy duration of this criminal proceeding violated his constitutional and statutory speedy trial rights. The First Circuit affirmed the orders of the district court on all counts, holding (1) Defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated; (2) the government did not violate the Speedy Trial Act in this case; (3) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion for acquittal or motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant. View "United States v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) asked the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to display a pair of paid, private advertisements on the trains, buses, and transit stations that the MBTA operates. The MBTA refused to display the advertisements, which concerned the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, concluding that AFDI’s submissions violated one of its Guidelines, namely, the prohibition on advertisements containing material that “demeans or disparages” individuals or groups. AFDI brought suit in federal court alleging a violation of the First Amendment and seeking a preliminary injunction ordering the MBTA to run the ads. The district court denied relief. The two cases were consolidated on appeal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the MBTA’s restriction on the display of advertisements that “demean or disparage” does not violate the First Amendment, either on its face or as applied. View "Am. Freedom Defense Initiative v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant, a member of a prominent political family allegedly involved in the Rwandan genocide, was convicted of two counts of procuring citizenship illegally by making false statements to the government. Specifically, the jury found that Defendant misrepresented her political affiliations and her participation in the genocide. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) any error in the court’s evidentiary rulings was harmless given the vast array of evidence against Defendant; (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) Defendant’s 120-month sentence was reasonable. View "United States v. Munyenyezi" on Justia Law

Defendant confessed to robbing a federal credit union and was convicted for this crime. Prior to trial, Defendant twice moved to suppress his confession, arguing that it was coerced in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Specifically, Defendant argued that where his girlfriend was also in police custody for the robbery at the time of his interrogation and a significant portion of his interview dealt with the impact that his cooperation would have on her prospects for release, the officers’ references to his girlfriend during the interrogation overpowered his will. The district court denied the motions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the officers did not act permissibly and that Defendant voluntarily chose to confess. View "United States v. Hufstetler" on Justia Law

Upon Defendant’s return from Puerto Rico from Colombia by airplane, heroin was discovered in hidden compartments of Defendant’s laptop computer and Sony Playstation game console. Defendant was indicted for possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. Defendant moved to suppress the heroin and any statements he made to United States Customs and Border Protection officers during further secondary questioning. The motion was denied. Defendant entered a conditional plea and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The First Circuit held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress the heroin and statements made as to his travels to and from Colombia and his plans upon reentry; but (2) the statements Defendant made regarding his drug trafficking activity should have been suppressed because the officers’ failure to give Defendant his Miranda warnings constituted a Fifth Amendment violation. Remanded so that Defendant could opt to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial should he choose to do so. View "United States v. Molina-Gomez" on Justia Law

Jorge L. Vaello-Carmona worked for Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. from 1991 until his dismissal in 2009. In 2011, Vaello-Carmona filed a complaint against Siemens alleging disability discrimination and unlawful termination in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Puerto Rico’s general employment discrimination and employment disability discrimination statutes. Vaello-Carmona died one month after filing his complaint. Appellants subsequently moved to substitute themselves as plaintiffs in this case. The district court denied the motion and dismissed Vaello-Carmona’s complaint, concluding that Vaello-Carmona’s employment discrimination claims were not inheritable. The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that Vaello-Carmona’s claims were inheritable under Puerto Rico law. View "Vaello-Carmona v. Siemens Med. Solutions USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former pretrial detainee at the Somerset County Jail (SCJ), filed this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that various correctional and administrative officers at SCJ violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by inflicting punishment on him without due process of law and by retaliating against him for filing grievances against members of SCJ’s staff. The district (1) granted summary judgment to several defendants who did not personally support or direct the alleged violations; and (2) with respect to the remaining defendants, there were genuine issues of material fact concerning the defendants’ motives and actions precluding summary judgment. Those remaining defendants appealed. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, as the defendants did not take issue with the district court’s factual assessments or come forward with any purely legal issues for the Court’s consideration. View "Goguen v. Allen" on Justia Law

Appellant was associated with Appellee, Raymond James Financial Services, as a securities broker. After Appellee decided to terminate Appellant’s contract, Appellant brought an arbitration proceeding before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, alleging that he had been fired because of his sexual orientation and his status as a recovering alcoholic, in violation of Vermont law. After granting the parties’ request that Florida law be applied to the proceedings, an arbitration panel awarded Appellant $600,000 in back pay on his claim of discrimination based on disability. The district court vacated the award, concluding that the arbitrators lacked authority to grant the remedy because Appellant brought no claims under Florida law. The First Circuit reversed, holding that although the arbitration decision may have been incorrect as a matter of law, the arbitrators’ decision to impose liability on Appellee under Florida law did not willfully flout the governing law or otherwise exceed the bounds of the arbitrators’ authority to resolve the parties’ dispute. Remanded for entry of an order confirming the arbitration award. View "Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Fenyk" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a retired employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), filed a civil action in the district court pursuant to Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision, alleging several claims. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the VA dismissing all but one of Plaintiff’s retaliation claims, concluding that the majority of Plaintiff’s claims were untimely and, in regards to another, Plaintiff failed to show a prima facie case of retaliation. Plaintiff then requested voluntary dismissal with prejudice of her remaining claim. The district court granted the request and dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the continuing violation doctrine did not apply to Plaintiff’s claims and, thus, her claims were time-barred. View "Ayala v. Shinseki" on Justia Law