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

HSBC Realty Credit Corporation loaned Brandywine Partners, LLC $15.9 million pursuant to a property-loan agreement for the purchase and development of industrial property in Delaware. J. Brian O’Neill, a principal of Brandywine, signed an absolute personal guaranty for the loan. O’Neill’s liability was capped at $8.1 million. After Brandywine defaulted on its repayment obligations, HSB filed suit on the guaranty agreement. O’Neill filed several defenses and counterclaims essentially asserting that HSBC must first recover any amount owed by Brandywine by proceeding against the Delaware property before turning to O’Neill’s personal guaranty. The district judge struck O’Neill’s defenses and counterclaims, granted HSBC judgment on the pleadings, and denied O’Neill’s request to replead. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court judge did not commit reversible error in granting HSBC judgment on the pleadings or in denying O’Neill leave to replead, as O’Neill did not provide any additional facts which, if repled, would permit him to make out a plausible claim for relief when matched up against the guaranty’s express language. View "HSBC Realty Credit Corp. v. O'Neill" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possessing with intent to defraud counterfeit United States currency. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not err in (1) admitting evidence seized by police during and after Appellant’s arrest ensuing from the officers’ investigative stop, as the officers had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify their actions; (2) denying Appellant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal, as sufficient evidence supported Appellant’s intent to defraud; and (3) issuing a jury instruction on the statutory element of fraudulent intent, as the instructions issued in this case were neither incorrect on the law nor unfairly prejudicial in favor of the government. View "United States v. Silva" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for two counts of distribution of heroin. The indictment alleged that “death and serious bodily injury resulted from the use of such substance.” In federal prosecutions, under Alleyne v. United States, if the distribution of drugs is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury to have been “death resulting,” a defendant will face a twenty-year mandatory minimum sentence. In this case, Defendant admitted all of the facts relevant to each count other than the “death resulting” allegations. Although the government did not prove to a jury that Defendant’s distribution of drugs resulted in death, the district court imposed the twenty-year mandatory minimum sentence, in violation of Alleyne. However, Alleyne was decided after sentencing and while the case was on appeal. The government asked the First Circuit Court of Appeals to depart from the usual practice of remanding for resentencing and instead to permit the prosecution on remand to empanel a sentencing jury to allow the government to prove that a death resulted from Defendant’s drug dealing. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s sentencing order and remanded for resentencing in the customary manner, holding that the government’s proposed course of action was foreclosed on the facts of this case. View "United States v. Herrerra Pena" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a computer that held child pornography. The presentence investigation report (PSI Report) suggested a guideline sentencing range (GSR) of fifty-seven to seventy-one months. The district court disagreed with the PSI Report, determined that Defendant was subject to a GSR of seventy-eight to ninety-seven months, and varied downward and imposed a seventy-two-month sentence. Defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the reasons that supported the imposition of Defendant’s sentence were fully sufficient to justify the sentence imposed. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action against her former employer (Employer) for violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, alleging that she was subject to sexual harassment while working for Employer and that she was terminated in retaliation for reporting the harassment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Employer. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in concluding that no reasonable juror could conclude that Plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment while an employee for Employer; and (2) even if Plaintiff had made a prima facie case of retaliation, which she did not, Plaintiff did not meet her burden of showing that Employer’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the termination was mere pretext. View "Ponte v. Steelcase Inc." on Justia Law

This matter began in a New Hampshire family court (“Family Court”) in 2006 and involved Plaintiff’s support obligations to his former wife and son. Due to Plaintiff’s financial evasiveness, the Family Court appointed a commissioner (“Commissioner”) to investigate and report Plaintiff’s gross income from 2006 forward. The Commissioner found Plaintiff’s income was higher than what Plaintiff had previously represented to the court. Consequently, the Family Court held Plaintiff in contempt for failure to pay past-due child support obligations and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff’s ex-wife. The New Hampshire Supreme Court (NHSC) denied Plaintiff’s discretionary appeal. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court seeking to enjoin the orders of the Family Court on constitutional grounds and to reverse the NHSC’s denial of his discretionary appeal. Plaintiff also asserted various claims against the Commissioner. The district court’s dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 3, which classifies appeals from child support orders as discretionary, does not violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution; and (2) the Commissioner was immune to suit for his acts as Commissioner in the matter. View "D'Angelo v. N.H. Supreme Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the former captain of a village fire department, filed this action against the department, its fire chief, and the board of fire commissioners (collectively, Defendants) after the board chose to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff alleged political discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983, retaliation in violation of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act, and tortious interference with contractual relations. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all counts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendants presented legitimate, business-related grounds for their employment decisions, and Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the proffered explanations were pretextual. View "Pierce v. Cotuit Fire Dist." on Justia Law

Defendant entered a guilty plea to possession of ammunition by a convicted felon pursuant to a plea agreement. The probation department recommended a guideline sentencing range (GSR) of up to twenty-seven months based in part on Defendant’s contempt conviction. At a disposition hearing, defense counsel argued that the contempt conviction had been imposed in violation of Puerto Rico laws. The district court refused to lower the GSR on this basis and imposed a thirty-six-month incarcerative sentence. Thirteen days later, defense counsel filed a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion to reconsider judgment and sentence. Before the district court took any action on the matter, defense counsel filed a notice of appeal. The district court subsequently denied the Rule 35(a) motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) Defendant’s original notice of appeal did not create appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s disposition of the Rule 35(a) motion; but (2) the Court had jurisdiction to review Defendant’s claim of procedural error in the imposition of the sentence itself, and the district court erred in its imposition of the sentence. View "United States v. Ortiz" on Justia Law

Appellant filed an action against her former employer, The Children Place (TCP) and the TCP district manager (collectively, Appellees), alleging that she was fired, harassed, and not rehired on the basis of race. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied three of Appellant’s discovery-related motions; and (2) the district court did not err by granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment as to (i) Appellant’s claims of race discrimination where Appellant was unable to rebut Appellees’ legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for her termination with evidence of pretext and discriminatory motive, and (ii) Appellant’s retaliation claim in light of her failure to establish a prima facie case. View "Pina v. Children's Place" on Justia Law

Defendants worked for Sports Off Shore (SOS), a gambling business based in Antigua. After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted of violations of the Wire Act and other offenses for conducting an illegal gambling business. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding, as regarding Defendants’ common challenges to their convictions, that (1) the district court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on the safe harbor provision of the Wire Act; (2) Defendants’ challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence failed because the Wire Act applies to the internet; (3) Defendants could be convicted of violating the Wire Act despite their ignorance of the law; (4) Defendants’ convictions were not an improper extraterritorial application of the Wire Act; (5) there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendants even though SOS accepted bets on forms of gambling not covered by the Wire Act; and (6) the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence a directory of all SOS employees. View "United States v. Lyons" on Justia Law