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

A federal law enforcement officer made a lawful traffic stop of Appellant, but by the time the officer stopped Appellant, he and Appellant were outside the jurisdiction in which the officer was authorized to make arrests. The officer could see that Appellant was intoxicated and arrested Appellant. Appellant was subsequently charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence, unsafe operation of a motor vehicle, and refusal to submit to a breath test. Appellant moved to suppress the evidence from his arrest on the grounds that the officer lacked the authority to arrest him. The magistrate judge agreed that the officer lacked statutory authority to arrest Appellant but refused to suppress the evidence because the arrest was not an unreasonable seizure. The district judge affirmed the magistrate judge's decision not to suppress the evidence. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Appellant's arrest did not constitute the kind of invasion of privacy that the Fourth Amendment prohibits. View "United States v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The City of Providence, Rhode Island enacted two ordinances to reduce tobacco use by young people. The Price Ordinance restricted the City's tobacco and cigarette retailers from reducing prices on tobacco products through coupons and multi-pack discounts. The Flavor Ordinance restricted sales of certain flavored tobacco products other than cigarettes. The National Association of Tobacco Outlets challenged the ordinances, alleging, inter alia, that the ordinances were preempted by federal and state law. The district court upheld the ordinances. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because the Price Ordinance was an appropriate regulation of price, it fell outside the First Amendment; (2) because the Flavor Ordinance was an appropriate sales regulation, it was not preempted; and (3) neither ordinance conflicted with state law. View "Nat'l Ass'n of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. v. Providence, R.I." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit promotional money laundering pursuant to a plea agreement. Defendant stipulated to the amount of money laundered and received a prison sentence within the range of the federal sentencing guidelines. Defendant appealed, seeking to vitiate his guilty plea on grounds that the record failed to establish a sufficient factual basis for his plea and asserting a claim of sentencing error. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in accepting Defendant's guilty plea, as sufficient facts supported the plea; and (2) there was no sentencing error where Defendant's stipulation removed any necessity for independent proof of the stipulated facts. View "United States v. Torres-Vazquez" on Justia Law

Defendant stole his older brother's identity to obtain five fraudulent mortgages. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to three counts of wire fraud and one count of identity fraud pursuant to a plea agreement. Under to the agreement, Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and ordered to pay $454,207 in restitution to the two defrauded mortgage companies. The plea agreement also contained an appeal waiver. Defendant appealed, challenging the restitution component of his sentence and arguing that his appeal waiver did not extend to it. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Defendant's appeal, as the waiver unambiguously encompassed restitution. View "United States v. Okoye" on Justia Law

Appellant was a criminal defense attorney that represented a client in a criminal case relating to the discharge of sewage into public waters. After trial, the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the client's convictions and remanded for retrial. Appellant subsequently filed ten motions in limine mostly to exclude or limit certain evidence used in the first trial. The trial court issued an order sanctioning Appellant and his client for having filed the motions in limine over the course of the six days prior to the scheduled start of the trial, "abusively late." The court suggested that the motions were filed late to avoid impacting the client's speedy trial act motion or to force a continuance of the trial. The First Circuit reversed the order, holding that the trial court erred in sanctioning Appellant, as there was no clear deadline for the filing of the motions in limine. View "United States v. Agosto-Vega" on Justia Law

Defendant, a pharmacist, accepted payments from "Internet pharmacy sites" for whose customers Defendant's employer, a mail-order pharmacy, filled orders. Eventually, Defendant was indicted on charges related to these payments and pled guilty to soliciting and accepting kickbacks. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court should have sentenced him for accepting an illegal gratuity rather than for demanding a bribe. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because Defendant pled guilty to soliciting and receiving a bribe, not a gratuity, and because recent changes in case law did not provide Defendant with assistance on appeal, the district court did not err in its judgment. View "United States v. Gracie" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to an eight-count federal indictment including charges of child pornography and using an interstate facility to attempt to persuade a person under eighteen to engage in a sexual act. After Defendant was released on probation, his supervised release was revoked for violating the terms of his probation. The district court subsequently directed Defendant's civil confinement as a "sexually dangerous person" under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Defendant was a sexually dangerous person subject to commitment. View "United States v. Volungus" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on a single count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. That same day, law enforcement officers interviewed Defendant at a proffer session, which was held pursuant to a written proffer agreement. The government promised Defendant it would not use against him any "statements made or other information" disclosed at the proffer session. After the proffer session failed, Defendant proceeded to trial. Despite its earlier assurances, the government presented at trial voice identification testimony from a police officer based on what the officer had heard at the proffer session. The testimony linked Defendant to an incriminating recorded telephone conversation. The jury found Defendant guilty. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Defendant's conviction, holding (1) admission of the testimony violated the proffer agreement and Defendant's due process rights; and (2) the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded. View "United States v. Melvin" on Justia Law

After losing his job as a stockbroker and financial advisor and his accompanying health insurance, Appellant applied for and received subsidized health insurance for several years. Russell represented on each application that he had no income to report and was unemployed, but Appellant was working under the table during those years. After a government investigation and an ensuing jury trial, Appellant was convicted of making false statements in connection with the payment of health care benefits. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the jury instruction on the definition of willfulness was not error; (2) the government presented sufficient evidence that Appellant's false statements were material to support the conviction; (3) the district court did not err in excluding certain testimony as state-of-mind hearsay; and (4) neither the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments nor his questions in eliciting testimony from a witness necessitated reversal. View "United States v. Russell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendants Salvatore DiMasi, the former Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and Richard McDonough, a lobbyist, were convicted of several crimes, including honest-services fraud and conspiracy to commit honest-services fraud, resulting from a scheme to funnel money to DiMasi in exchange for political favors. The district court sentenced DiMasi to ninety-six months' imprisonment and McDonough to eight-four months' imprisonment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendants' convictions; (2) the trial court did not prejudicially err in instructing the jury; (3) the trial court did not err in its challenged evidentiary rulings; and (4) the trial court did not err in sentencing Defendants. View "United States v. McDonough" on Justia Law