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

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court rejecting the jury's advisory verdict in this case, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Plaintiff, a former intelligence specialist, sued his former employer, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Puerto Rico pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging discriminatory retaliation and constructive discharge resulting from a hostile work environment. After a jury returned a verdict on liability for retaliation and awarding the statutory maximum in damages, the district court charged the jury to return an advisory verdict on the issue of damages for constructive discharge. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff as to that issue, and thereafter, Plaintiff sought a judgment of front and back pay. The district court rejected the jury's advisory verdict, concluding that the verdict was not supported by the evidence, that Plaintiff was not constructively discharged, and that Plaintiff was not entitled to front or back pay. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff waived his objection to the district court's decision to submit the constructive discharge issue to an advisory jury; and (2) the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous. View "Reyes-Caparros v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence of ninety months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release for his conviction for one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), holding that the evidence did not support the application of a sentencing enhancement.On appeal, Defendant argued that his sentence could not stand because it was predicated on the application of a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) that the record did not support. Defendant argued that the district court erred in applying the enhancement, which was based on Defendant's possession of firearms "in connection with drug trafficking, a felony offense," because it improperly relied on a conclusory allegation that Defendant was working as an armed enforcer for a drug trade organization. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the evidence did not support the sentencing enhancement's application. View "United States v. Carrion-Melendez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed as moot Gary Lee Sampson's appeal from his death sentence for murder and declined to exercise its equitable discretion to vacate the death sentence, holding that Sampson's convictions, life sentence, and death sentence remain intact.Following a retrial, a unanimous jury sentenced Sampson to death for committing a murder. Sampson appealed. While his appeal was pending, Sampson died in prison. The First Circuit held (1) the parties correctly agree that Sampson's underlying convictions and life sentence cannot, as a matter of law, be vacated; and (2) as to the death sentence, the appeal was moot. View "United States v. Sampson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the Town of Brookline, Massachusetts on Plaintiff's claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging discrimination on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment.Plaintiff brought this action alleging that Brookline violated his equal protection rights in terminating his employment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Town. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's evidence failed to establish that the Town's proffered reasons for failing to accommodate and then dismissing Plaintiff were a pretext for race discrimination. View "Fincher v. Town of Brookline" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for certain drug-trafficking offenses, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of its allegations of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of cocaine with like intent. On appeal, Defendant raised four claims of error. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of a wiretap; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in removing a juror for cause; (3) there was no plain error in the court's challenged evidentiary rulings; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of certain intercepted phone calls was not substantially outweighed by any unfairly prejudicial effect. View "United States v. Encarnacion" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed Petitioner's petition for review of a final administrative removal order (FARO) issued against her in 2018 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction over the petition.The DHS issued a FARO against Petitioner stating that she was removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because she had been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(K). While Petitioner's petition for review of the FARO was still pending the DHS issued a notice to appear for separate removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1229a based on Petitioner's extended presence in the United States after her visa had expired. The DHS subsequently canceled the FARO. The First Circuit dismissed Petitioner's petition for review, holding that in the wake of the government's purported cancellation of Petitioner's FARO, the cancellation will result in there being no final removal order against Petitioner at the present time. View "Xu v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying a motion to intervene filed by LBRY Foundation Inc. (Foundation) in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) civil enforcement action against LBRY, Inc. (LBRY), holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.The SEC brought his complaint alleging that LBRY failed to register as investment contracts under section 5 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77e, LBRY Credits (LBC), an offering of digital assets. Foundation, whose assets consisted of grants of LBRY, moved to intervene, seeking to contest the SEC's enforcement action with alternative legal arguments than those given by LBRY. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Foundation was not entitled to intervene as of right. View "Securities & Exchange Commission v. LBRY Foundation Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Upon executing a no-knock search warrant following reports of discharged shots the police found two shotguns and related paraphernalia in Defendant's bedroom. In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the police exceeded the scope of the warrant by searching his bedroom, which was located on the third floor of the building, because the searched warrant was for "88 Foundation St. 2nd floor." The district court denied the motion, concluding that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the officers reasonably believed that the warrant permitted the search of Defendant's third-floor bedroom. View "United States v. Pimentel" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that this dispute concerning the disposition of assets once held by the uncle of the parties in this case belonged in a state court, not in a federal court, holding that the district court did not err.Plaintiff Sandra Lerner and her cousin, Defendant Stephen Colman, were both citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Plaintiff attempted to plead claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962, 1964(c), and appended state law claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court concluded that the complaint did not adequately state a cause of action under RICO and then dismissed the state law claims without prejudice to their being refiled in state court. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the RICO claim failed because Plaintiff did not allege a pattern of racketeering activity. View "Lerner v. Colman" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied in part Petitioner's petition for judicial review and remanded this immigration case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for further consideration, holding that remand was required for consideration of an argument Petitioner raised before the BIA but the BIA did not address.The BIA in this case affirmed an immigration judge's (IJ) decision denying Petitioner asylum relief, withholding of removal under Immigration and Nationality Act, protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture Act, and ordering her removed. Petitioner filed a petition for review. The First Circuit remanded the case, holding (1) because the BIA did not address Petitioner's argument that the record evidence supported Petitioner's membership in a particular social group, that of Salvadoran female small business owners, remand was required for such consideration; and (2) this Court lacked jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's second claim. View "Gomez-Abrego v. Garland" on Justia Law