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

The Court of Appeals of the First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of committing a hate crime and one count of conspiring to commit a hate crime under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr, Hate Crimes Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. 249(a)(1), 371, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) section 259(a)(1) does not implicate federalism concerns; (2) certifications made under 249(b) are exempt from judicial review, and therefore, Defendant's challenge to the certification of his prosecution failed; and (3) Defendant's remaining assignment of error was waived. View "United States v. Diggins" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for receipt and possession of child pornography, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's pre-trial motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant and did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain text-message evidence as inadmissible hearsay.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant failed sufficiently to describe ether pornographic images to be found and that the court erred in excluding from his trial the text message evidence at issue. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress; and (2) the district court did not err in barring the text messages from Defendant's trial. View "United States v. Chiu" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the decision of the district court that the prosecutor in the underlying Rhode Island case transgressed the Batson rule in the course of jury selection but that Petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief, holding that the decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court could not withstand habeas review.Petitioner, a Rhode Island state prisoner and an African-American man who was convicted of murder and other crimes, claimed in his petition for writ of habeas corpus that the prosecutor violated Batson during jury selection. The federal district court concluded that Petitioner's rights under Batson were violated but that the Rhode Island Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in finding sufficient race-neutral reasons for a peremptory challenge against the juror in question. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) the prosecutor's explanation for his peremptory strike was not race-neutral on its face and thus violated Batson; and (2) the Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision rested on either an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, an unreasonable determination of the facts, or both. View "Porter v. Coyne-Fague" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court revoking Defendant's supervised release and adding to the terms of his supervised release a monitoring condition as to Defendant's computer activities to provide him with incentives to comply with the law, holding that the condition was not unwarranted.Defendant pleaded guilty to a twenty-four-count indictment charging him with money laundering, mail and wire fraud, and tax evasion and was sentenced to fifteen-years in prison. After he was released, Defendant stipulated to violating the terms of his supervised release. The district court revoked Defendant's supervised release and imposed several new conditions of supervision, including the condition at issue on appeal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the imposition of the computer monitoring condition was not an abuse of discretion. View "United States v. Windle" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to a 150-month term of immurement in connection with his plea of guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, holding that there was no breach of the plea agreement in this case.On appeal, Defendant argued that the government breached the parties' agreement to recommend a sentence at the low end of the applicable guideline range and that the alleged breach defeated a waiver-of-appeal provision in the plea agreement. The First Circuit affirmed the judgment below, holding that, under the plain error standard, Defendant failed to show that the prosecutor's overall conduct was other than "reasonably consistent with making [the promised] recommendation." View "United States v. Lessard" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that Defendant violated the conditions of his supervised release term and the length of his revocation sentence, holding that any error was harmless.Defendant pleaded guilty to participation in a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to a 120-month term of imprisonment to be followed by a sixty-month term of supervised release. The district court subsequently found that Defendant committed a violation of his supervised release, revoked the supervised release, and sentenced Defendant to a sixty-month term of imprisonment to be followed by a thirty-six month term of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) even if the admission of certain testimony was error, the error was harmless; and (2) the district court did not clearly or obviously err in imposing the revocation sentence that it did. View "United States v. Cintron-Ortiz" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants and dismissing Plaintiff's claims challenging the termination of his employment on free speech grounds, holding that summary judgment was improper in this case.Plaintiff, a former bus driver for the Worcester Regional Transit Authority (WRTA), brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming that Defendants violated his right to free speech under the First Amendment to the federal constitution and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA) when they terminated his employment following public comments that he made to a television network about proposed budget cuts to the WRTA. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The First Circuit remanded the case, holding (1) the district court erred in concluding that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff was not speaking "as a citizen" during the television interview; and (2) Defendants did not have an adequate justification for treating Plaintiff differently from other members of the general public by terminating him for his protected speech. View "Bruce v. Worcester Regional Transit Authority" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the ruling of the district court denying Appellant's motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act (FSA), holding that Appellant was not entitled to a sentence reduction.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of racketeering, conspiracy to commit racketeering, murder in aid of racketeering, and other crimes. The district court imposed three concurrent life sentences for the racketeering charges. Following the passage of the FSA, Appellant filed a pro se motion for compassionate release, arguing that the age at the time of his crimes, the length of his sentence, and his rehabilitation efforts warranted the reduction of his sentence. The district court denied the request. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that no extraordinary and compelling reasons existed so as to warrant a reduction of Appellant's life sentence. View "United States v. Sepulveda" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence entered after he pleaded guilty to illegally possessing a machine gun, holding that Defendant's upwardly variant sentence could not stand.After a hearing, the sentencing judge imposed a variant sentence of forty-eight months - eighteen months more than the top of the recommended sentencing range. On appeal, Defendant argued that his incarcerative term was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit agreed with one of Defendant's claims of procedural error, holding (1) under United States v. Rivera-Berrios, 968 F.3d 130 (1st Cir. 2020), when neither the judge nor the record identifies a "special characteristic attributable either to the offender" or the circumstances of the offense that removes the "case from the mile-run," the upwardly variant sentence "cannot endure"; and (2) the judge erred in sentencing Defendant. View "United States v. Flores-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed all but a small portion of the sentence and restitution order imposed by the district court in connection with Defendant's guilty plea to charges of falsely impersonating a federal officer and wire fraud, holding that the inclusion of travel expenses in the restitution order was error.Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of impersonating a federal officer and four counts of wire fraud. The district court imposed five concurrent eighteen-month terms of immurement and ordered restitution in the amount of $30,605. On appeal, Defendant challenged his sentence as both procedurally and substantively unreasonable and argued that his restitution order was excessive because it improperly included certain travel expenses. The First Circuit largely affirmed, holding (1) there was no procedural error; (2) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable; and (3) the restitution order was not improper with the exception of the inclusion of travel expenses in the amount of $605. View "United States v. Carrasquillo-Vilches" on Justia Law