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

The police, after seizing a cell phone from Defendant's person as part of his lawful arrest, searched the phone's data without a warrant. Based on information obtained from the cell phone, Defendant was charged with possessing with intent to distribute and distributing cocaine base and with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Defendant unsuccessfully filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search of his phone, and the district court subsequently convicted Defendant as charged. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress and vacated his conviction, holding (1) the search in this case exceeded the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment search-incident-to-arrest exception; and (2) because the government did not argue that the search here was justified by any exception to the warrant requirement, Defendant's motion to suppress must be granted. Remanded. View "United States v. Wurie" on Justia Law

Defendant, a thrice-convicted felon, and his confederates attended a backyard barbecue at which firearms were openly displayed. They subsequently reconvened at the scene of a planned robbery. The robbery was never consummated, but the police arrested Defendant on firearms charges. During the jury trial, the district court admitted evidence of Defendant's statements to the police about events occurring at the cookout. Defendant was convicted as charged. The First Circuit Court of Appeals, holding (1) the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knowingly possessed firearms charged in the indictment, and therefore, the district court correctly denied Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; and (2) the district court did not err in admitting Defendant's statements about the robbery scheme and his handling of the revolver at the cookout, as the evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to eight years' incarceration after she pled guilty to various crimes committed during her sixteen years on the run with wanted fugitive, James "Whitey" Bulger. Defendant challenged her sentence on appeal, claiming that the court erroneously calculated her base offense level on the conspiracy to harbor a fugitive count, incorrectly applied a firearm enhancement, wrongly utilized an obstruction of justice enhancement, and erred in allowing family members of Bulger's alleged victims to speak during sentencing. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) finding that Defendant's conduct was not limited to harboring Bulger and refusing to cap her offense level accordingly; (2) applying the firearm enhancement and the obstruction of justice enhancement; and (3) deciding to let the family members speak. View "United States v. Greig" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an employee of Defendant, filed claims against Defendant for unlawful employment retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff alleged that she was subject to several adverse employment actions that were taken in retaliation for occasions on which Plaintiff called attention to Defendant's purportedly discriminatory employment practices. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant, concluded that, as to the two aspects of her employment at issue, Plaintiff had neither established a prima facie case of retaliation nor shown that Defendants' stated rationales for their purportedly unlawful actions toward her were pretextual. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that no reasonable fact-finder could resolve the issues in Plaintiff's favor. View "Colon v. Tracey" on Justia Law

Appellant received a life sentence for his role in a large-scale drug operation that sold heroin, crack, cocaine, and marijuana at a public housing project in Puerto Rico. Appellant pled guilty to several drug offenses at the end of the first day of testimony. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Appellant's sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge, holding (1) the imposition of a general sentence of life imprisonment on all counts when none of the crimes of conviction supported that penalty was improper, and the life term of imprisonment did not survive the plain error test; and (2) the district court erred in fixing Appellant's sentence by considering information obtained during an ex parte meeting with the probation department. View "United States v. Zavala-Marti" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, five kilograms or more of cocaine, one or more kilograms of heroin, and an undetermined quantity of marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. Defendant received a thirty-year incarcerative sentence. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for reduction of sentence. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded because the court's conclusion was not self-evident on the face of the record. In remanding, the First Circuit directed that Defendant could only be held responsible for those drugs he personally handled as well as "those that were reasonably foreseeable to him." The district court reaffirmed its ruling on remand, finding that the quantity of heroin distributed by the conspiracy was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant and in itself sufficient to support Defendant's sentence. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court's foreseeability finding and the drug quantity determinations underlying it were clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Candelaria-Silva" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted in the District of Massachusetts of aiding and abetting the making of a false claim against the United States in connection with his 2008 federal income tax return. Defendant appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court's aiding and abetting instruction was legally correct in that it accurately conveyed the appropriate legal elements; (2) the aiding and abetting instruction did not constructively amend the indictment in violation of the Fifth Amendment; and (3) the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to sustain Defendant's aiding and abetting conviction. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

When Appellant's factoring business began experiencing serious financial troubles, Appellant allegedly defrauded a number of lenders to obtain more money to resolve her financial problems. After a government investigation, indictment, and five-day trial, a jury convicted Appellant of mail fraud. Appellant appealed her conviction, claiming that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the elements of mail fraud and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly focused its jury instructions on the necessary elements of a scheme to defraud and did not err in failing to give a specific unanimity instruction; and (2) Appellant failed to establish that prejudice resulted from defense counsel's performance, and therefore, she could not prevail on her ineffective assistance claim. View "United States v. LaPlante" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted in Massachusetts state courts on two counts of unarmed robbery and sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen to twenty years' imprisonment. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, claiming newly discovered evidence. The appeals court affirmed the convictions but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the newly discovered evidence. Following the evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion for a new trial. The appeals court affirmed. Defendant then filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 federal habeas corpus petition in the U.S. district court, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and violations of his right to due process. The district court dismissed the petition because it contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration, as the record was inadequate to permit effective appellate review. View "DeLong v. Dickhaut" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. Defendant was sentenced to a ten-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment based on the trial court's finding that the crime involved eight kilograms of cocaine. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from him in Massachusetts when he left the scene of a drug deal because the agents arrested Defendant based on the strong likelihood that he had participated in criminal activity; and (2) the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant to a mandatory minimum sentence based on the court's findings as to drug quantity. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law