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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendants' convictions of multiple counts of introducing through their work at the New England Compounding Center (NECC) "misbranded" drugs into interstate commerce with the intent to defraud or mislead, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Defendants Kathy Chin and Michelle Thomas worked at NECC, a compounding pharmacy that distributed a contaminated medication that led to illnesses and deaths of patients across the country. Defendants were among fourteen individuals affiliated with NECC who were charged with criminal offenses related to the contaminated medication. A jury found Defendants guilty of the counts that each faced. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence; (2) the statute setting forth the underlying offense was not void for vagueness as applied to Defendants; and (3) none of Defendants' grounds for overturning the district court's rulings under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 had merit. View "United States v. Chin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment on Count I of Plaintiff's complaint seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 but reversed the entry of summary judgment on Count IX, holding that unconstitutional conduct of police officers violated the clearly established law of the Supreme Court, as set forth in Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6 (2013).Plaintiff brought this complaint against the Town of Orono, the chief of the Orono Police Department, and four police officers with whom he interacted during two encounters in 2016 - one in February and one in September - both of which resulted in his being arrested without a warrant on charges that were subsequently dropped. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly granted summary judgment on Count I relating to the February incident; but (2) erred in granting summary judgment on Count IX relating to the September incident. View "French v. Merrill" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's consecutive upwardly variant sentences imposed in two criminal cases, holding that both sentences were procedurally and substantively reasonable.While on bail pending trial for drug and firearm-related charges, Defendant was arrested and charged in a separate case with receipt of a firearm while under indictment for a felony. Defendant pleaded guilty to the firearm offenses in both cases and requested to be sentenced for both counts of conviction in a single proceeding. The district court granted the requested and sentenced Defendant to upwardly variant sentences. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's sentences in both cases were procedurally reasonable and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Vargas-Martinez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Francis Lang's petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to vacate his Massachusetts conviction for murder in the first degree, holding that the district court did not err in denying the petition.Lang was convicted in a Massachusetts court for murder in the first degree. In this action, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, Lang sought to vacate his conviction, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate Lang's mental health history. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). View "Lang v. DeMoura" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's twelve-year sentence imposed in connection with his conviction for bank robbery, holding that none of Defendant's contentions on appeal had merit.A jury found Defendant guilty of one count of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a). In sentencing Defendant, the district court varied downward, sentencing him to a prison term of 144 months. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in classifying him as a career offender. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in treating Defendant's prior state-court marijuana conviction as a controlled substance offense under the career-offender provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. View "United States v. Crocco" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the decision of the district court granting Appellants' motions brought under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 for a post-verdict judgment of acquittal on the charge of conspiring to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, holding that the district court erred in granting the motions.These consolidated appeals stemmed from the federal criminal investigation into the operations of the New England Compounding Center (NECC), a licensed pharmacy, after patients across the country became ill or died from a contaminated medication. Appellants were Sharon Carter and Gregory Conigliaro, who were, respectively, NECC's former director of operations and NECC's former vice president and general manager. A jury found both Appellants guilty of violating section 371. The district court granted Appellants' motions for a judgment of acquittal on the section 371 count. The First Circuit reversed, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the convictions. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendants' convictions connected with the murder of Steven DiSarro, holding that Defendants were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error.Defendants, Francis Salemme and Paul Weadick, were convicted of the 1993 murder of DiSarro. At the time of the murder, Salemme was the boss of a criminal organization known as the New England La Cosa Nostra. Defendants murdered DiSarro to prevent him from talking with federal agents about his activities with Salemme, Weadick and Salemme's son. On appeal, Defendants challenged the trial court's admission of a significant amount of evidence concerning the prior criminal activities of Salemme and several witnesses. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in admitting the evidence. View "United States v. Weadick" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of making false statements on certain government forms, theft of government property, and failing to disclose an event that affected Defendant's right to Social Security payments, holding that Defendant's claims on appeal were without merit.Defendant suffered a work injury while working as a mechanic for the United States Postal Service (USPS) and began receiving worker's compensation and Social Security disability benefits. After Defendant had been receiving benefits for several years, the USPS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) began investigating the case and determined that Defendant had continued working and volunteering with his union without disclosing the activities as required. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported the convictions; (2) the district court properly granted the government's motion in limine preventing Defendant from presenting certain evidence; and (3) there was no error in the sentence imposed by the district court. View "United States v. Rivera-Ortiz" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress his federal New Hampshire prosecution on double jeopardy grounds, holding that Defendant's double jeopardy rights did not attach in earlier Maine criminal proceedings.In 2018, Defendant was indicted in the District of Maine with criminal offenses. On January 31, 2020, the United States filed a motion to dismiss the indictment without prejudice. Defendant filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal or dismissal with prejudice, arguing that, given the government's accompanying admission that it could not prove its case and his lengthy pretrial detention, due process required an acquittal or dismissal with prejudice. The district court denied the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice. Also on January 31, 2020, the United States filed a criminal complaint in the New Hampshire district court. A grand jury issued an indictment. Defendant moved to dismiss count two on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that jeopardy did not attach to Defendant's Maine criminal proceedings. View "United States v. Suazo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendants' convictions of one count each of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute one hundred grams or more of heroin and one count each of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendants' pre-trial rulings denying their motions to suppress evidence that resulted from the search of their vehicle, including their statements made during the stop; (2) the district court did not impermissibly limit the questioning of Gutierrez in violation of the Confrontation Clause; (3) the prosecutor improperly made a statement during closing argument that referred to facts not in evidence, but the statement was harmless; (4) the district court properly instructed the jury in response to a question asked during deliberations; and (5) the district court did not err in applying the mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)(i). View "United States v. Cruz-Rivera" on Justia Law