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

Manish Kumar was involved in a scheme to smuggle misbranded prescription drugs and controlled substances into the United States from March 2015 to August 2019. Kumar, an Indian national, was a partner in Mihu, a New Delhi-based company that sold generic versions of drugs like Viagra, Cialis, Adderall, and tramadol without FDA approval or proper prescriptions. Kumar managed call centers in India where representatives made false statements to U.S. customers, claiming the drugs were FDA-approved and that no prescriptions were needed. Kumar was arrested in August 2019 on unrelated identity theft charges and later charged in Massachusetts with conspiracy to smuggle drugs, distribute controlled substances, and make false statements. He pled guilty to all charges in October 2022.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts sentenced Kumar to 87 months in prison. The court applied a fraud cross-reference in the Sentencing Guidelines and accepted the government's estimate of the loss amount involved in the offense, which was approximately $3.8 million. Kumar objected to both the application of the fraud cross-reference and the loss amount calculation, arguing that the evidence was insufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the fraud cross-reference was correctly applied because the false statements made by call center representatives were within the scope of Kumar's conspiracy and were made in furtherance of the criminal activity. The court also found that the sentencing court did not clearly err in its loss amount calculation, as it relied on detailed government estimates and supporting data. The First Circuit affirmed Kumar's 87-month sentence. View "United States v. Kumar" on Justia Law

Nathan Reardon, the appellant, pleaded guilty in 2022 to five counts of bank fraud related to fraudulent loan applications for pandemic-relief funds. He was sentenced to five concurrent twenty-month terms of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. The First Circuit previously vacated a special condition of his supervised release that banned him from self-employment due to inadequate explanation. On remand, the district court provided a fuller explanation and retained the condition. Reardon’s supervised release began on July 7, 2023, but within six weeks, the probation office filed a petition to revoke it, citing multiple violations, including failure to provide financial information, engaging in self-employment, and incurring new credit charges without approval.The United States District Court for the District of Maine held a preliminary hearing and found probable cause for the violations, leading to Reardon's detention. At the revocation hearing, Reardon did not contest the violations. The district court calculated a guideline sentencing range of three to nine months and ultimately imposed a nine-month term of imprisonment followed by twenty-five months of supervised release. The court noted the immediacy and flagrancy of Reardon’s violations and his disregard for the conditions of his release.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court found no procedural error, noting that the district court had adequately considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors and addressed the mitigating factors presented by Reardon. The court also held that the nine-month sentence was substantively reasonable given the nature and circumstances of Reardon’s violations. View "United States v. Reardon" on Justia Law

Damian Cortez was involved in a criminal case where he was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, and possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. The government alleged that Cortez was part of a Massachusetts gang known as "NOB" and was involved in various criminal activities, including drug trafficking. Cortez conditionally pled guilty to the charges after his motions to suppress evidence obtained from two search warrants were denied by the district court.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Cortez's motions to suppress evidence seized from an apartment in Attleboro, Massachusetts, and from two cell phones. Cortez argued that the affidavit supporting the search warrant for the apartment did not establish probable cause that he was involved in a RICO conspiracy or that he resided in the apartment. He also requested a Franks hearing, claiming that the affidavit contained false statements and omissions. The district court found that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause and denied the request for a Franks hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the affidavit established probable cause to believe that Cortez was involved in a RICO conspiracy and that he resided in the Attleboro apartment. The court noted that the affidavit included evidence from GPS data, photographic evidence, and direct observations linking Cortez to the apartment. The court also found that Cortez did not make a substantial preliminary showing that the affidavit contained false statements or omissions necessary to warrant a Franks hearing. Therefore, the court upheld the denial of the motion to suppress and the request for a Franks hearing. View "United States v. Cortez" on Justia Law

In 2009, Guillermo González-Santillan fled Puerto Rico to avoid his sentencing hearing for conspiracy to commit money laundering, after pleading guilty as part of a plea agreement. He remained a fugitive for thirteen years until he was apprehended in the Dominican Republic and returned to the United States. Upon his return, the government sought a two-point obstruction-of-justice sentencing enhancement due to his abscondment.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico initially accepted González-Santillan's guilty plea and scheduled a sentencing hearing. However, after he failed to appear, the court revoked his bail and issued an arrest warrant. Following his capture, the court ordered an updated presentence report, which included the government's recommended obstruction-of-justice enhancement. González-Santillan objected, arguing that the plea agreement barred the enhancement and that the government failed to prove willfulness in his failure to appear.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the obstruction-of-justice enhancement. The appellate court found that González-Santillan's thirteen-year abscondment clearly demonstrated willfulness, as evidenced by his failure to attend a scheduled probation meeting, his sentencing hearing, and his subsequent flight to another country. The court also concluded that the government did not breach the plea agreement by seeking the enhancement, as González-Santillan's abscondment constituted a material breach of the agreement, thereby releasing the government from its original obligations.The First Circuit affirmed González-Santillan's seventy-month sentence, upholding the district court's application of the obstruction-of-justice enhancement. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Santillan" on Justia Law

The case involves Alejandro Cortés-López, who was serving a 24-month prison term after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. Cortés-López had entered into a plea agreement with the government, admitting to a fraudulent financial scheme that solicited residents in Puerto Rico to invest in short-term, high-interest loans in the Dominican Republic. The plea agreement stipulated a total offense level (TOL) of 18, which, combined with a criminal history category of I, suggested a guidelines sentencing range (GSR) of 27-33 months' imprisonment. However, both parties agreed to jointly request a variant sentence of 24 months of probation.The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated a higher TOL due to the financial fraud scheme resulting in more than $5.4 million in losses to the investors. Cortés-López objected to these enhancements, but the probation office maintained that the higher loss amount and additional enhancement were correct. At the sentencing hearing, the government acknowledged the PSR's calculation but stated it was standing by its plea agreement recommendation of 24 months of probation. The district court, however, imposed a sentence of 24 months' imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release and $5.4 million in restitution.Cortés-López appealed, arguing that the government breached the plea agreement by supporting the higher TOL calculated in the PSR and failing to advocate meaningfully for the agreed-upon 24-month probation sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed, finding that the government's conduct at the sentencing hearing was a breach of the plea agreement. The court vacated Cortés-López's sentence and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Cortes-Lopez" on Justia Law

In this case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the plaintiff-appellant, David Efron, filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim and various Puerto Rico law claims against UBS Financial Services and other defendants. Efron alleged that the defendants had illegally disclosed his private bank account information to his ex-wife, triggering litigation and a subsequent indemnification claim from UBS. The district court dismissed Efron's case after denying him leave to file a second amended complaint.On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the district court had not abused its discretion by limiting Efron to deposing only two UBS employees before filing his proposed second amended complaint. The court also agreed that permitting Efron to amend his complaint would be futile, affirming the dismissal of his RICO claim. The court declined to impose sanctions against Efron, despite arguments from UBS that the appeal was frivolous. The court concluded that while Efron's case was weak, it was not so squarely resolved in his prior appeal on a different RICO claim that it could be deemed frivolous. View "Efron v. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

This case revolves around the dismissal of a case due to the plaintiff's counsel's unexcused absence from the final pretrial conference. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit raised the question of whether a district court may dismiss a case for such a reason, especially when it's the first and only instance of non-compliance and the court did not consider a lesser sanction. In this case, the plaintiff had filed a complaint alleging RICO violations and related state-law claims. However, the plaintiff's counsel failed to appear at the final pretrial conference, leading to the dismissal of the case by the district court.Upon review, the Court of Appeals held that while a district court has inherent power to manage its docket and may dismiss a case sua sponte for reasons prescribed in Rule 41(b), such dismissal should only occur when a plaintiff's misconduct has been extreme or contumacious. The dismissal should not be viewed as a sanction of first resort or an automatic penalty for every failure to abide by a court order. Thus, the Court of Appeals found that the district court had erred in dismissing the case without first considering a lesser sanction or warning the disruptive party. The court vacated the district court's dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Vivaldi Servicios de Seguridad, Inc. v. Maiso Group, Corp." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of wire fraud and honest services wire fraud, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1346, and 2 (count seven) for participating in a fraudulent scheme to obtain tests and test scores from ACT, Inc., holding that the district court did not err.Defendant, along with fourteen other parents, was named in an indictment resulting from an investigation into alleged fraudulent schemes designed to secure the admission of the children of the defendants into national elite universities. Defendant was charged with several crimes stemming from his payment of $50,000 to have an ACT proctor change his son's test scores. Defendant moved to dismiss count seven on the grounds that ACT test scores do not constitute money or property under the wire fraud statute. The motion was denied, and Defendant conditionally pled guilty. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the property interest alleged in the indictment was the object of Defendant's fraud; and (2) Defendant's remaining arguments were either waived or without merit. View "United States v. McGlashan" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity and sentencing him to thirty years' imprisonment, holding that there was no error in the underlying sentence.Defendant pled guilty to participating in two fraud schemes - business email compromise and online romance. Defendant pled guilty to his convictions. The district court applied two enhancements to Defendant's sentence - one for the unauthorized use of a means of identification unlawfully to produce another means of identification and another for the substantial financial hardship caused to one victim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in applying the sentencing enhancements. View "United States v. Iwuanyanwu" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the restitution order entered by the district court holding Defendant jointly and severally liable for all sums illicitly obtained by the charged conspiracy in this case, holding that the restitution order was not an abuse of the district court's discretion.Defendant, a lawyer formerly licensed in Florida, and his co-conspirators organized a scheme designed to defraud investors of millions of dollars. The conspirators convicted at least five people to invest substantially in the scheme. One of the victims eventually contacted authorities, and Defendant and his co-conspirators were charged with a single count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Defendant pleaded guilty. The district court sentenced Defendant to twenty-nine months of immurement followed by supervised release and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $3,473,701. The First Circuit affirmed the restitution order, holding that where a defendant is convicted as a member of a wire-fraud conspiracy, a district court has discretion to order him to reimburse the victims of the scheme, jointly and severally with his co-conspirators, for all reasonably foreseeable losses created by the fraudulent scheme. View "United States v. Ochoa" on Justia Law