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

Appellant was indicted in federal district court on two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition. Appellant moved to suppress the ammunition as well as inculpatory statements he made in connection with his arrest. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion. Appellant subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea on both counts, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. Appellant then appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court properly declined to grant Appellant's suppression motion, as the stop that led to the discovery of the ammunition (1) was justified at its inception and did not constitute an unlawful seizure, and (2) was not transformed into a de facto arrest requiring Miranda warnings. View "United States v. Rabbia" on Justia Law

After they were fired from their jobs, Appellants filed suit in federal district court against their former employer (Employer) and against the severance plan (Plan) established by Employer pursuant to ERISA. The complaint asserted federal claims under ERISA, ADEA, ADA, and other federal laws, and also asserted a breach of contract claim, an employment discrimination claim, and an unjustified dismissal claim under Puerto Rico law. The district court granted Appellees' motion for summary judgment. Appellants challenged that ruling as well as a number of the district court's other orders. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no error in the management of this case or the grant of Appellees' motion for summary judgment. View "Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc." on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of participating in an oxycodone distribution conspiracy, and he received a sentence of 210 months. On appeal, Defendant raised several challenges to his conviction and sentence, the most important of which was that the district court erred in refusing to suppress evidence that Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents obtained from Defendant's cellular telephone, without a warrant, two weeks after they seized the phone. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) any error on the suppression issue was harmless, and therefore the Court did not need to address whether the agents' activity was lawful under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) Green's other claims also lacked merit. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

In this case a corporation abruptly cashiered a member of senior management, which prompted the employee to file suit for age discrimination and retaliation. After a protracted trial, the jury found the employer guilty of retaliation and returned a seven-figure verdict in the employee's favor. The district court allowed the liability finding to stand, trimmed the damages but doubled what remained, refused to grant either judgment notwithstanding the verdict or an unconditional new trial, and awarded the prevailing plaintiff attorneys' fees and an equitable remedy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment below except vacated the previously remitted award of emotional distress damages and directed the district court to order the plaintiff either to remit all of that award in excess of $200,000 or else undergo a new trial on that issue. The Court also directed the district court to adjust its award of multiplied damages to reflect the plaintiff's response to this remittitur. View "Trainor v. HEI Hospitality, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant sought review of his conviction on a charge of conspiracy to collect debts by extortionate means and collection of debts by extortionate means. On appeal, Appellant claimed (1) the trial was tainted by the trial judge's rulings relating to allegations of juror taint and by supposed mistakes in the judge's instructions - or failure to give instructions - to the jury; (2) the district court erred in instructing the jury on the elements of extortionate debt collection; and (3) the district court failed sua sponte to instruct the jury to disregard a specific sidebar exchange that Appellant claimed the jury overheard. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that all of Appellant's claims failed on the merits. View "United States v. Dehertogh" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted for traveling in interstate commerce and then knowingly failing to update his sex offender registration at his destination as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The district court sentenced Appellant to thirty-five months' imprisonment consecutive to his state sentence for violating probation by failing to update his Massachusetts sex offender registration. Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing, inter alia, that SORNA's registration requirements impermissibly increased his punishment for his earlier sexual offenses. SORNA was enacted in 2006. Appellant's previous offenses took place in 1990 and 1996. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) SORNA does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause; (2) SORNA does not reach beyond the limits of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause; (3) SORNA as applied to Appellant did not violate Appellant's due process rights; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to make Appellant's sentence consecutive to, rather than concurrent with, his thirty-month sentence. View "United States v. Parks" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute various controlled substances, including crack cocaine, and conspiracy to possess firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. On July 27, 2010, the district court sentenced Appellant to a 150-month incarcerative term. On August 3, 2010, Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), which gave the Sentencing Commission emergency authority to lower the guideline penalties for crack cocaine offenses. The Commission promulgated the new guideline amendments, which ensured that the lowered guideline ranges would for the most part be available for retroactive application. In anticipation of the November 1, 2011 effective date, Appellant filed a motion for a sentence reduction. The district court declined to reduce the sentence "in the exercise of its discretion." The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the catalogued factors plainly indicated that the court gave individualized consideration to Appellant's situation and had specific - and not unreasonable - grounds for denying a sentence reduction. View "United States v. Aponte-Guzman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of producing, and aiding and abetting in the production of, a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct using materials mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. Defendant appealed, asserting that the Government's proof as to the crime's jurisdictional element - i.e, that the materials were part of foreign or interstate commerce - rested on inadmissible hearsay, which violated his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. Defendant argued that the testimony of the Government's witness regarding the origin of a hard drive and webcam constituted inadmissible hearsay because it relied on statements contained in the labels affixed to the same. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding that the trial court did not plainly err in admitting the disputed testimony, as the witness could have relied on his own expert knowledge rather than the labels in forming an opinion about the objects' origin. View "United States v. Acevedo-Maldonado" on Justia Law

A federal grand jury in the district of Maine handed up an indictment that charged an elementary-school music teacher with two counts of transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. After a bench trial, the district court found the teacher guilty and imposed a twelve-year incarcerative sentence. The teacher appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court improperly admitted evidence of his contact with the victim during a bus trip and his inappropriate conduct with another young girl. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant forfeited his Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) claim of error; (2) the district court afforded Defendant a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine a government witness; and (3) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Raymond" on Justia Law

In this adverse employment action, Plaintiff appealed the district court's award of summary judgment to his former employer ("the Company") on his claims of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. On appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals noted inconsistencies between the Company's stated reasons for dismissal and Plaintiff's performance record at the Company, the lack of credibility that could be ascribed by a jury to certain of the Company's justifications for dismissal, and the fact that in response to arguably similar conduct by Plaintiff's younger replacement, the Company took no disciplinary action. The First Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that there was sufficient evidence presented on summary judgment from which a jury could draw the permissible inference that the Company's claimed reasons for terminating Plaintiff were pretextual and that the decision was the result of discriminatory animus. View "Acevedo-Parrilla v. Novartis Ex-Lax, Inc." on Justia Law