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

Humana, a health insurance company and Medicare Part C and Part D sponsor, filed a lawsuit against Biogen, a drug manufacturer, and Advanced Care Scripts, Inc. (ACS), a specialty pharmacy, in the District of Massachusetts. Humana alleged that Biogen and ACS engaged in fraudulent schemes involving three multiple sclerosis drugs, violating the civil RICO statute. Humana claimed that Biogen "seeded" the market with these drugs, funneled patients into Medicare, and indirectly funded patient copays through third-party patient-assistance programs (PAPs). Humana also alleged that ACS aided Biogen's scheme by steering patients and acting as an intermediary between Biogen and the PAPs, causing the submission of false certifications to Humana.The district court dismissed the case, ruling that Humana lacked standing to bring RICO claims because it was an indirect purchaser and failed to plead the RICO claims with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court found that Humana did not specify the time, place, and content of the alleged fraudulent communications and failed to detail the false certifications' language, timing, and context. Humana's motion for leave to amend the complaint was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that Humana failed to meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b) for its RICO claim. The court held that Humana did not provide specific details about the fraudulent certifications or the use of mail or wire communications in furtherance of the scheme. The court also upheld the denial of leave to amend, citing undue delay and the inefficiency of seeking amendment after dismissal. View "Humana Inc. v. Biogen, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, a local attorney, was contracted by Theory Wellness, a marijuana dispensary operator, to assist in obtaining a host community agreement from the City of Medford, Massachusetts. Instead of legitimate lobbying, the defendant attempted to bribe Medford's chief of police through the chief's brother. This led to the defendant's convictions on two counts of honest-services wire fraud and one count of federal programs bribery.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts presided over the trial, where a jury convicted the defendant on all counts. The defendant was sentenced to concurrent twenty-four-month terms of imprisonment. The defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain testimony, and the jury instructions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the honest-services wire fraud convictions, finding that the district court erroneously admitted the only evidence establishing the jurisdictional element of those counts. However, the court affirmed the federal programs bribery conviction, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant intended to bribe the chief of police.The court held that the defendant's actions constituted a bribery scheme under 18 U.S.C. § 666, even if the defendant did not believe the chief had accepted the bribe. The court also found that the district court's failure to instruct the jury on the requirement of an "official act" was harmless, as the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that the defendant sought official acts from the chief. The court rejected the defendant's entrapment defense, finding no improper inducement by the government and that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. View "United States v. O'Donovan" on Justia Law

On June 1, 2021, two masked men, later identified as Hall and Medina, abducted a U.S. postal worker at gunpoint to interrogate him about a package with missing contents, which was found to contain illicit drugs. During an undercover operation, law enforcement arrested Hall, Garay, and Medina while they attempted to collect other drug-laden packages. Officers seized five telephones from the defendants and obtained search warrants for the phones' contents and historical cell site location information (CSLI) for two defendants. A federal grand jury indicted the defendants on charges including kidnapping, conspiracy, and drug possession.The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island found the warrants lacked probable cause due to missing referenced exhibits in the applications and suppressed the evidence. The court also rejected the government's argument that the good faith exception from United States v. Leon should apply, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the officer executing the warrants acted in good faith. The court noted that the officer, Inspector Atwood, had no reason to believe the affidavits were not attached and relied reasonably on the USAO to file the applications correctly. The court distinguished this case from United States v. Sheehan, emphasizing that the incorporation language was explicit and the error was not systemic but isolated. Consequently, the First Circuit vacated the suppression order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Medina" on Justia Law

Dario Giambro was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The conviction stemmed from evidence found by police officers who forcibly entered his home in Hebron, Maine, without a warrant. The officers entered the home based on information from Giambro's son, Antonio, who reported that his mother, Arline, had died and was not in the house. Giambro argued that the warrantless entry violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that the evidence should be suppressed. He also challenged the charge on Second Amendment grounds.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied Giambro's motion to suppress, ruling that the entry fell within the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The court found that the officers had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that Arline might be in need of immediate aid, despite Antonio's report that she had died and was not in the house. The court also denied Giambro's motion to dismiss the charge on Second Amendment grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court's application of the emergency aid exception. The appellate court held that the officers did not have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that Arline was alive and in need of immediate aid, given that Antonio had been in the house that morning and reported that she was not there. The court emphasized that the officers should have spoken to Antonio and Giambro, who were available for questioning, before forcibly entering the home. Consequently, the First Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, vacated Giambro's conviction and sentence, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not address the Second Amendment claim due to its ruling on the Fourth Amendment issue. View "United States v. Giambro" on Justia Law

In September 2021, Jonathan Fargas-Reyes pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a modified Glock pistol. He was sentenced to 33 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release, starting in November 2021. In January 2022, Puerto Rico police observed Fargas with firearms outside his home. After a brief chase, Fargas and his girlfriend, Mary Herrera-Cruz, were arrested. They were found with multiple firearms and ammunition. Fargas pled guilty to illegally possessing firearms and ammunition as a convicted felon, while Herrera pled guilty to aiding and abetting.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico sentenced Fargas to 120 months in prison for the new crime, above the recommended range of 57 to 71 months, and an additional 24 months for violating his supervised release, to be served consecutively. Herrera received a 37-month sentence, within the guidelines range.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Fargas argued that the government breached the plea agreement by effectively advocating for a higher sentence and that his sentences were procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The court found no plain error in the government's conduct, noting that the prosecutor adhered to the plea agreement's terms. The court also held that the district judge adequately explained the reasons for the upward variance, emphasizing the seriousness of Fargas's conduct and the need for deterrence and public protection. The court rejected Fargas's argument about sentencing disparity with Herrera, noting significant differences in their criminal histories and circumstances.The First Circuit affirmed Fargas's sentences but allowed him the right to seek resentencing under a retroactive guideline amendment that could eliminate the status points added to his criminal history score. View "United States v. Fargas-Reyes" on Justia Law

In June 2013, Fagbemi Miranda was convicted of first-degree murder in Massachusetts state court. The defense aimed to discredit the government's key witness, suggesting Miranda's brother was responsible for the shooting. However, Miranda wanted to testify that he shot the victim in self-defense. This disagreement in defense strategy is central to the habeas case. The incident occurred on October 10, 2005, when Miranda and Christopher Barros argued outside Miranda's home. Miranda's brother, Wayne, joined the argument with a handgun. After a chase, Wayne handed the gun to Miranda, who then shot Barros. Barros was found unconscious and later died. Initially, Wayne was arrested, but a neighbor's later testimony implicated Miranda.Miranda was indicted in 2008 and convicted in 2013. He filed a notice of appeal and a motion for a new trial, which were denied. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed his conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial in 2020. Miranda's petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. He then sought habeas relief in the District of Massachusetts, which was denied in 2022, but a certificate of appealability was granted.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. Miranda argued that his counsel interfered with his right to set the defense objective, that his due process rights were violated by the trial judge's refusal to instruct the jury on self-defense, and that he was deprived of his rights to testify and to effective assistance of counsel. The court found that the SJC's rulings were not unreasonable applications of federal law. The court concluded that Miranda's counsel's errors did not prejudice the outcome of the trial, as Miranda's self-defense claim was not viable. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas petition. View "Miranda v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Donald Turner pleaded guilty to bank robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At the time of these offenses, Turner was on supervised release and admitted to related violations. Due to his history of violent felonies, Turner was designated an armed career criminal, resulting in an advisory sentencing guideline range of 180 to 210 months. The district court sentenced him to 210 months for the new offenses and an additional 24 months for the supervised release violations, to be served consecutively.Previously, Turner had been convicted of multiple bank robberies. In 2006, he committed two bank robberies in Maine, leading to a 60-month sentence. In 2011, while on supervised release, he committed another bank robbery and was sentenced to 72 months, plus 24 months for the supervised release violation. In 2020, while again on supervised release, Turner committed another bank robbery, leading to his current charges.Turner appealed, arguing that his felon-in-possession conviction violated his Second Amendment rights, that the district court committed procedural and substantive errors in sentencing, and that the court misapprehended its discretion regarding the consecutive supervised release sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed these claims.The First Circuit held that Turner waived his Second Amendment claim by not timely moving to dismiss the felon-in-possession count as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12. The court found that the district court imposed a procedurally sound and substantively reasonable sentence. The court also determined that the district court did not believe it was required to impose a consecutive revocation sentence but chose to do so based on sentencing considerations. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the judgments. View "US v. Turner" on Justia Law

Joel Anthony Cockerham, the petitioner, is confined at a federal facility in Massachusetts after being civilly committed under 18 U.S.C. § 4243 by a federal district court in the Northern District of Mississippi. Cockerham filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking discharge from his commitment and compensation for damages. He argued that his continued confinement was unlawful and sought non-conditional release.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed Cockerham's habeas petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning that he should have sought relief from the committing court under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h). The court also denied Cockerham's motion to amend his petition, concluding that amendment would be futile because the amended petition also sought relief from confinement, which should be addressed by the committing court.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of Cockerham's original habeas petition, agreeing that § 4247(h) provides a mechanism for seeking discharge and that Cockerham had not shown that this remedy was inadequate or unavailable. However, the court vacated and remanded the District Court's ruling on the motion to amend. The appellate court found that Cockerham's proposed amended petition, which challenged the suitability of his confinement at FMC Devens and sought transfer to a less restrictive facility, was distinct from a claim for discharge and could potentially be addressed under § 2241. The court instructed the District Court to reconsider whether the amended claims could be heard under § 2241 or if they must be brought under § 4247(h). View "Cockerham v. Boncher" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2) after entering a straight guilty plea. He was sentenced to forty-eight months' imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. The defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The case originated when the defendant was a passenger in a car stopped by police for having darkly tinted windows. During the stop, the driver reached for a fanny pack containing a firearm, which was visible to the officer. Both the driver and the defendant admitted to owning the firearm and knowing it was modified to function as a fully automatic weapon. The defendant was charged with illegal possession of a machine gun.After his arrest, the defendant was released under supervision but violated the terms of his release by testing positive for marijuana multiple times. He explained that he used marijuana to cope with the deaths of several family members. Despite these violations, the court took no action before his sentencing hearing.At sentencing, the district court considered the defendant's criminal history, the nature of the offense, and his repeated violations of pretrial release. The court also noted the dangerousness of modified machine guns and the high rate of gun violence in Puerto Rico. The court imposed a sentence above the guidelines range, citing the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense and to promote respect for the law.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court did not commit procedural error and that the sentence was substantively reasonable. The appellate court affirmed the sentence, concluding that the district court provided a plausible rationale for the upward variance and adequately considered the defendant's individual circumstances. View "United States v. Cordero-Velazquez" on Justia Law

Djuna Goncalves was indicted and pleaded guilty to eight counts of drug and firearm-related charges. He reserved the right to appeal a sentence exceeding 180 months. Goncalves was sentenced to 230 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release. He appealed, arguing that the district court improperly applied a two-level enhancement for his role as an organizer, leader, supervisor, or manager under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c).The District Court of Massachusetts initially handled the case. Goncalves did not dispute the factual basis for his plea or the guideline calculations, except for the enhancement for his role in the criminal activity. The district court applied a two-level enhancement, concluding that Goncalves was a manager or supervisor of his family members involved in the drug trafficking operation. This resulted in a total offense level of 31 and a guidelines range of 151 to 188 months, plus a mandatory consecutive sentence for firearm possession.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the two-level enhancement, finding insufficient evidence that Goncalves exercised control over, managed, organized, or supervised another participant. The court noted that while Goncalves gave instructions during a drug transaction, there was no evidence that these instructions were obeyed, which is necessary to prove managerial or supervisory authority. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the enhancement. View "United States v. Goncalves" on Justia Law