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

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

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