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

Defendant was indicted with one count of cyberstalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2261A. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to the cyberstalking charge. Defendant was sentenced to a term of sixty months’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the cyberstalking charge in the indictment and argued that his sentence above the Guidelines range was unreasonable. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) section 2261A was constitutionally applied to Defendant and is not overbroad; and (2) the district court’s decision to vary upward rather than depart downward was not an abuse of discretion. View "United States v. Sayer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against his former employer, a school district alleging that the school district violated the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) when it reassigned Plaintiff to a new position after he took an extended leave of absence for medical reasons. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district, holding (1) the school district’s FMLA eligibility and designation notices were inadequate and untimely, but Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that he suffered harm from the lack of notice; and (2) the school district’s request for a medical opinion as to Plaintiff’s ability to return to work did not interfere with his FMLA rights or constitute retaliation. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not overlook genuine issues of material fact, misapply the parties’ burdens of production, or rely upon inadmissible evidence in granting summary judgment for the school district. View "Bellone v. Southwick-Tolland Reg'l Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

In 2000, Plaintiff, a former scallop fisherman, was prosecuted by an enforcement arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”). The ALJ sustained all charges against Plaintiff. The district court sustained findings of liability on two charges of fishing in a prohibited area, vacated a false statement charge against Plaintiff, and remanded. On remand, Plaintiff reached a settlement with the government. In 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that his prior prosecution by the NOAA constituted malicious prosecution and abuse of process under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the actions of federal prosecutors are immune from this type of suit under the FTCA, but there can be FTCA recovery for the actions of investigative or law enforcement officers who have committed the wrongful acts specified; and (2) Plaintiff failed to state a claim that any law enforcement officer wrongfully induced a malicious prosecution or acted to abuse process. View "Yacubian v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Chinese national, entered the United States without inspection in 1993. Federal authorities soon served Petitioner with a show-cause order charging removability. Petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled removal hearing, and the immigration judge (IJ) entered an order of deportation in absentia. Several years later, Petitioner moved to reopen the proceedings. The IJ denied Petitioner’s motion as untimely, concluding that Petitioner had waited too long past the 180-day deadline for such motions to file his motion. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. More than eight years later, Petitioner filed a second motion to reopen directly with the BIA. The BIA denied the second motion to reopen, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion. Almost three years later, Petitioner filed a third motion to reopen. The BIA denied the motion as untimely, concluding that no plausible justification existed for relieving Petitioner from the 180-day deadline. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding that the BIA acted within its discretion in finding that Petitioner’s third motion to reopen was untimely. View "Wang v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of several federal crimes related to his efforts to have sex with a child. Some months later the judge sentenced Defendant to life plus ten years in prison. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated the life sentences, holding (1) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting evidence of Defendant’s 1993 New Jersey conviction; (2) Defendant’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2260A for committing a particular felony crime involving a minor while required to register as a sex offender was valid; but (3) the district court erred in sentencing Defendant to life imprisonment, and because vacating Defendant’s life terms undid the judge’s sentencing schematic, a resentencing on the other counts was appropriate. Remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Appellant conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a firearm following a prior conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) and 924(a). Appellant appealed, arguing, among other things, that commission of simple assault by recklessly causing offensive physical contact does not constitute the “use or attempted use of physical force” as required to qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” and therefore, his prior conviction could not serve as a valid predicate offense for purposes of section 922(g)(9). The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Appellant’s conviction and the district court’s denial of Appellant’s original motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory grounds, holding that the record was insufficiently developed as to the issue of whether, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Castleman, there may be some merit to Appellant’s statutory argument. Remanded. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

Brothers Angel Ayala-Vazquez (“Alaya”) and Luis Cruz-Vazquez (“Cruz”) (collectively, “Appellants”) were arrested and indicted following a federal investigation into a wide-ranging drug trafficking organization (“DTO”) based out of two housing projects in Bayamon, Puerto Rico. Unlike dozens of other defendants who entered guilty pleas, Appellants stood trial together. Appellants were both convicted of multiple criminal charges related to their involvement in the DTO, and each Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and Cruz’s life sentence, holding (1) the evidence introduced at trial was sufficient to support the jury verdicts; (2) the trial judge’s comments at trial did not deprive Appellants of a fair trial; and (3) the district judge did not abuse his discretion in sentencing Cruz to life imprisonment, and Cruz failed to overcome the sentence’s presumption of reasonableness. View "United States v. Ayala-Vazquez" on Justia Law

In 2006, Michael Wilson, a former Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (“BMS”) sales presentative, filed a complaint alleging that BMS engaged in off-label promotion of certain drugs, and that these actions caused false claims to be submitted to the government in violation of the False Claims Act (“FCA”). Wilson subsequently entered in a partial settlement agreement with BMS that concluded part of the case. In 2009, Wilson filed a second amended complaint expanding upon his earlier, not settled, allegations against BMS and adding Sanofi-Aventis, U.S., LLC as a defendant. In 2013, the district court dismissed Wilson’s federal FCA claims relating to Plavis and Pravachol because they violated the FCA’s first-to-file rule based on two complaints that were filed before Wilson filed his original complaint. Wilson appealed from the dismissal as well as from the denial of his motion to file a third amended complaint and from denial of his follow-up motion to reconsider. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly dismissed the remaining FCA claims because they ran afoul of the first-to-file rule; and (2) the district court was correct in rejecting the third amended complaint. View "United States ex rel. Wilson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Inc. " on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Indian national who entered the United States unlawfully in 2003, filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal. After a hearing on the merits, an immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application, finding that Petitioner’s testimony was not credible and that Petitioner failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Petitioner waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his application for asylum and that rejection of Petitioner’s claim for withholding must follow from the defeat of Petitioner’s asylum claim. View "Singh v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased property with a mortgage from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. In October 2006, Plaintiff took out a loan from Countrywide to cure his breach of a divorce agreement. In December 2006, Plaintiff took out a home equity loan from Countrywide. Because Plaintiff was not able to make payments on his October 2006 loan, Countrywide foreclosed on his property. In May 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging claims of unjust enrichment, rescission/equitable relief, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and negligence. Countrywide removed the case to federal court. The district court resolved certain claims as a matter of law and, after a bench trial on the remaining claims, entered judgment in favor of Countrywide. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that no grounds exited for reversing any of the district court’s decisions. View "Frappier v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law