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

In these consolidated appeals concerning the "categorical and sweeping nature" of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that Section 99 violates the First Amendment in criminalizing the secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers discharging their official duties in public spaces, holding that the district court properly accounted for the values of both privacy and accountability within our constitutional system.Section 99 makes it a crime to record another person's words secretly and without consent, but Massachusetts does not recognize any exceptions based on whether that person has an expectation of privacy in what is recorded. In 2016, two sets of plaintiffs - the Martin Plaintiffs and Project Veritas Action Fund - filed suit alleging that Section 99 violates the First Amendment. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Martin Plaintiffs; and (2) affirmed the district court's order dismissing Project Veritas's First Amendment overbreadth challenge for failing to state a claim but vacated on ripeness grounds the dismissal with prejudice of Project Veritas's remaining First Amendment challenges to the statute and remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, Martin v. Rollins" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of stealing a motor vehicle and one count of brandishing a firearm, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to compel Defendant's co-defendant to testify and by denying Defendant's motion to delay the trial until after Defendant's co-defendant was sentenced; and (3) precedent foreclosed Defendant's argument that the jury's verdict was inconsistent and his conviction should be vacated. View "United States v. Forty-Febres" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully possessing a machine-gun, holding that the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant.In sentencing Defendant, the district court sentenced Defendant to sixty months, which was outside the guidelines range. The First Circuit largely affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it calculated Defendant's guideline sentencing using other relevant conduct; (2) the sentencing court did not improperly rely on an arrest that was unsupported by probable cause; and (3) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant access to the written Statement of Reasons (SOR) but erred when it denied counsel access to the SOR. The Court remanded the case to give defense counsel access to the SOR. View "United States v. Ramirez-Romero" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of eighty-six months' imprisonment after pleading guilty to two firearms counts, holding that the sentence was not procedurally unreasonable.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court (1) committed clear error by applying the four-point enhancement under Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); and (2) failed to provide the notice required by Rule 32(h) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure before imposing a sentence that departed from the Guidelines. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by applying the four-point enhancement; and (2) because the district court imposed a "variance," not a "departure," it did not violate Rule 32(h). View "United States v. Tirado-Nieves" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Petitioner's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255, holding that defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance in deciding not to call two witnesses during Petitioner's trial and introduce certain documents.After a trial, Petitioner was found guilty of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine and of aiding and abetting others to do so as well. Thereafter, Petitioner field a timely habeas petition, arguing that his right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment was violated by deciding not to call two witnesses during trial. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that even if counsel's performance was deficient, Defendant's ineffective assistance claim failed because there was no reasonable probability that the results of the trial would have been different had counsel called the two witnesses. View "Rijo v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of armed bank robbery and related crimes, holding that Defendant's claims on appeal were without merit.After a trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, armed bank robbery, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and using, carrying or brandishing firearms during and in relation to a crime of violence. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of eighty-seven months of imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (2) any constitutional shortcoming in the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) does not undermine Defendant's section 924(c) conviction. View "United States v. Hernandez-Roman" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting a Union's motion to dismiss two Hampshire state employees' (Appellants) complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, holding that Appellants' claim based on Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), was not cognizable under section 1983.Appellants sought retrospective relief for themselves and other state employees who were not members of the State Employees' Association of New Hampshire (the Union) but were forced to pay "agency fees" to it prior to the decision in Janus. In Janus, the United States Supreme Court overruled its decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), and held that "agency fee" arrangements violate the First Amendment. The district court granted the Union's motion to dismiss Appellants' complaint for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly held that Appellants' damages claim failed. View "Doughty v. State Employees' Ass'n of New Hampshire" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the sentencing court sentencing Defendant to a 235-month term of imprisonment for one count of abusive sexual contact with a child under the age of twelve, holding that the sentencing judge erred in applying the cross-reference provision in U.S.S.G. 2A3.4(c)(1).Defendant was indicted on two counts for abusing his two granddaughters. Defendant guilty to one count of sexual contact with a child under the age of twelve and the government dismissed the other count of the indictment, the charge of aggravated sexual abuse of a child under twelve. In sentencing proceedings, the government invoked the cross-reference provision at issue, the application of which resulted in a guideline range fourteen to eighteen years greater than the ordinary range for that offense. The sentencing court applied the cross-reference provision in sentencing Defendant. The First Circuit vacated the sentence, holding (1) only one of Defendant's acts considered by the sentencing court was suitable for consideration in assessing the appropriate sentence to be imposed; and (2) therefore, the sentencing judge erred when he relied on both acts to justify the application of the cross-reference provision. View "United States v. Castillo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion for a new trial, holding that the government failed to show that the district court granted reversible error by granting the motion for a new trial upon finding when the court deemed to be a violation of the Confrontation Clause.Defendant was convicted of three counts charging her with wire fraud, honest services wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit both types of wire fraud. Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal or for a new trial. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the Confrontation Clause was violated in the proceedings below and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no plain error in the district court's choice of the applicable standard of harmlessness. View "United States v. Ackerly" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendants' convictions for securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud, holding that Defendants' claims of trial and sentencing error were unavailing.Defendants were two biostaticians employed by two publicly traded biopharmaceutical companies. The jury found Defendants guilty of conspiracy of commit securities fraud and all counts of securities fraud with which they were charged. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in denying Defendants' motions for judgments of acquittal as to the conspiracy and securities fraud convictions; (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants' motion to compel production of a letter from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority; (3) imposed sentences that were without error; and (4) did not err in awarding restitution. View "United States v. Chan" on Justia Law