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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for maintaining a drug-involved premises, holding that the sentence was not unreasonable.Defendant pleaded guilty to maintaining a drug-involved premises. The trial court imposed an eighty-six-month term of immurement, reflecting a two-level downward variance for Defendant's agreement to be sentenced remotely and another two-level downward departure requested by the government. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court's denial of an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to find that Defendant's conduct warranted the denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment; and (2) the district court did not clearly err in balancing the relevant factors when performing the acceptance-of-responsibility analysis. View "United States v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court dismissing this complaint alleging a First Amendment claim and seeking a preliminary injunction, holding that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation.At issue was the electronic case filing system piloted by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) for the state's trial courts, which resulted in delayed access. Plaintiffs, state and federal news agencies, sued Defendants, state court officials, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights. Thereafter, the SJC changed its rules. The district court held that Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim, dismissed the complaint, and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation. View "Courthouse News Service v. Quinlan, Bangor Publishing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession with intent to distribute forty grams or more of fentanyl, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized during a stop and warrantless search of his vehicle.After Defendant was indicted he filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained a result of the stop and search in this case. The district court denied the motion and found Defendant guilty. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress and that, alternatively, the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because he was de facto placed under arrest without probable cause. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) if there was an arrest it was a lawful one; and (2) no evidentiary hearing was necessary in this case. View "United States v. Batista" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that the district court incorrectly found that Defendant's prior conviction in a Puerto Rico court for attempted aggravated burglary was a conviction for a crime of violence within the meaning of the United States Sentencing Guidelines sections 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and 4B1.2(a).Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced him to thirty months' imprisonment. Defendant challenged the enhancement of his sentence on appeal. The government conceded that Defendant's Puerto Rico conviction was not one of the enumerated offenses in the Guidelines' definition of "crime of violence" but argued that the error was harmless. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that Defendant was prejudiced by the trial court's error. View "United States v. Velez-Vargas" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 alleging that the prosecution violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S.C. 79 (1986) during his criminal trial, holding that there was no error.Based on an interaction with four white men outside an apartment building Petitioner was convicted in the Maine Superior Court of reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon and criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon. Petitioner later filed his petition for habeas corpus. The superior court denied the petition, concluding that the prosecution's race-neutral explanation for striking the sole person of color from the jury pool was not pretextual and, therefore, that there was no purposeful discrimination. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no error. View "Hollis v. Magnusson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of forty-one months' imprisonment imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the sentence.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in calculating his sentencing guidelines range by imposing a two-point enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight and that the government breached the plea agreement at sentencing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in imposing the enhancement; and (2) the government's sentencing arguments did not constitute a breach of the plea agreement. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to 135 months' imprisonment in connection with his pleas of guilty to crimes arising from his sexually-explicit virtual contact with an eleven-year-old Massachusetts girl, holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate reversible error.Defendant pleaded guilty to coercion and enticement of a minor (count one) and transfer of absence material to a minor (count two). The district court imposed a term of 135 months' imprisonment on count one and a term of 120 months on count two, with the terms to be served concurrently. On appeal, Defendant challenged the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no clear error in the district court's decision. View "United States v. Procell" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's conviction of knowingly violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g), which prohibits nine categories of persons from possessing a firearm, holding that the trial court erred when it allowed the jurors to convict without finding that Defendant knew his state-court conviction placed him in the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.In Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), the Supreme Court held that convictions under section 924(a)(2) for knowingly violating section 922(g) require "the Government [to] prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm." On appeal in the instant case, Defendant argued that the proceedings were tainted by errors relating to the mens rea requiring to establish a knowing violation fo section 922(g). The First Circuit vacated the conviction, holding that there was harmful error where the jury was allowed to convict Defendant of knowingly violating section 922(g)(9) without finding that he knew that his assault conviction placed him in the category of persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. View "United States v. Minor" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentences imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to two carjacking counts and one firearm possession count, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal were without merit.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to three specified counts. The district court imposed an aggregate sentence of 150 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's claims of procedural unreasonableness lacked merit; and (2) the 150-month aggregate sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Ortiz-Perez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the order of the district court dismissing this action, holding that the court erred in characterizing the forum selection clause in this case as mandatory.Plaintiff Zuleyka Rivera, a former Miss Universe, sued Kress Stores of Puerto Rico, Inc. and Mark Berezdivin in federal district court alleging breach of contract and tort claims in connection with an agreement between the parties granting Kress Stores exclusive rights to use Plaintiff's name, pageant title, image, and likeness for the development and promotion of branded items of apparel and fragrances. When Kress Stores failed to pay Plaintiff the stipulated annual stipend she sued in federal district court. The district court granted Kress Stores' motion to dismiss, concluding that the suit was brought in contravention of the agreement's forum selection clause. The First Circuit vacated the judgment below, holding (1) the agreement's forum selection clause did not by its terms exclude jurisdiction in another court; and (2) therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the action based on the forum selection clause. View "Rivera v. Kress Stores of Puerto Rico, Inc." on Justia Law