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

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

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting motions to dismiss filed by defendants Charles Taylor Consulting Mexico, S.A. de C.V., James Heiden, and Pierre Barron (collectively, Charles Taylor) and Universal Insurance Co. for failure to state a claim under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., holding that there was no error.Plaintiffs OK Resorts of Puerto Rico, Inc., Executive Fantasy Hotel, Inc., and Riverside Resort, Inc. (collectively, OK Resorts) brought this action against Charles Taylor under RICO and Puerto Rico law. The district court granted Charles Taylor's motions to dismiss after the agreed-upon discovery deadline had passed. On appeal, OK Resorts argued that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing he amended complaint at the time it did. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "OK Resorts of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Charles Taylor Consulting Mexico, S.A. de C.V." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and one count of importation of cocaine and his sentence of a term of imprisonment of 120 months to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the First Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) admitting evidence, including the testimony of a canine handler that a drug sniffing dog alerted to Defendant vehicle eighteen days prior as "other-acts" evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) admitting testimony of a Homeland Security Investigations agent about the practices of drug traffickers smuggling drugs into Puerto Rico as that of a lay witness opinion pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 701; and (3) failing sua sponte to order a competency evaluation prior to or during Defendant's sentencing hearing. View "United States v. Agramonte-Quezada" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant, pursuant to a jury verdict, of conspiracy to commit a robbery, committing the robbery, and discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence resulting in death, holding that none of Defendant's challenges on appeal had merit.After a jury found Defendant guilty of all counts the district court sentenced him to thirty years in prison. The First Circuit affirmed the judgment, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; (2) Defendant failed to preserve any objection to the use of a Pinkerton instruction; and (3) Defendant's evidentiary challenges were unavailing. View "United States v. Serrano-Delgado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to illegally possessing a machine gun and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that the judge's sentence "explanation" was reversible error.The crime for which Defendant was convicted carried a top prison term of ten years. Defendant sought a term of twenty-four months, and the government sought thirty months. The judge varied the sentence to sixty months because, in part, Defendant had a track record of engaging in drug offenses and weapon violations. Defendant appealed, challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the judge's decision. The First Circuit vacated the sentence, holding that because the trial judge gave "weight" to arrests not backed by "convictions or independent proof of conduct," Defendant's sentence could not stand. View "United States v. Torres-Melendez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting the separate post-verdict motions for judgment of acquittal filed by the two defendants in this case, Eddie Guerrero-Narvaez and Kayvan Cartagena-Suarez, holding that there was no error.After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted of aiding and abetting each other in the commission of a carjacking. Defendants subsequently filed separate post-verdict motions for judgment of acquittal. The district court granted Guerrero-Narvaez's motion, ruling that no reasonable trier of fact could find from the evidence presented at trial that Guerrero-Narvaez possessed the requisite specific intent to violate the federal carjacking statute. The court then granted Cartagena-Suarez's motion as well. The government appealed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the evidence did not support the jury's conclusion that Cartagena-Suarez possessed the necessary intent. View "United States v. Guerrero-Narvaez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Appellant's plea of guilty to one count of investment adviser fraud, four counts of wire fraud, and one count of aggravated identity theft, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Appellant argued that her plea was not knowing and voluntary, that the evidence was insufficient to convict her of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, that several sentencing enhancements were improperly applied, and that her counsel was ineffective. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the district court's acceptance of Appellant's guilty plea; (2) Appellant's conduct clearly satisfied the statutory requirements for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft; and (3) Appellant's challenges to several aspects of her sentence were unavailing. View "United States v. Kitts" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the district court did not err in its application of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1) and in its imposition of a mandatory fifteen-year sentence.Defendant pled guilty to a felon in possession charge. The district court concluded that, due to his four prior Maine burglary convictions, Defendant qualified for the ACCA's enhanced mandatory minimum penalty, and sentenced Defendant to fifteen years' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in applying the ACCA to Defendant based on his prior burglary convictions in Maine; and (2) this Court declines to overturn its prior decision in United States v. Duquette, 778 F.3d 314 (1st Cir. 2015), and its application of the categorical approach to the statute at issue here. View "United States v. Bowers" on Justia Law