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

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and other offenses and resentencing him to a 300-month sentence, holding that Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable.Defendant, who had been imprisoned for the last thirteen years for tax fraud and his role and an armed standoff with the U.S. Marshals Service, filed a second motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The district court granted the motion and subsequently resentenced Defendant to a term that was 144 months below the prior sentence. Defendant appealed, raising two constitutional objections to his sentence and challenging the reasonableness of his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's constitutional challenges were without merit; (2) there was no procedural error in the district court proceedings; and (3) the sentence imposed was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The First Circuit held that a district court, when adjudicating a prisoner-initiated motion for compassionate release, is not bound by the Sentencing Commission's current policy statement and may consider the First Step Act's (FSA) non-retroactive changes in sentencing law on an individualized basis to determine whether an extraordinary and compelling reason exists for compassionate release.While Defendant was serving his sentence Congress passed the FSA. See Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. The FSA reduced certain enhanced mandatory minimum penalties and modified the criteria for qualifying prior offenses and also amended the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), to allow prisoners to file their own motions for compassionate release. Defendant subsequently moved for compassionate release. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the FSA's changes could not support an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. The First Circuit vacated the judgment below, holding that the court erred by concluding, as a matter of law, that the FSA's prospective changes to the mandatory minimum penalties could not, even when considered on an individualized basis, support a decision for compassionate release. View "United States v. Ruvalcaba" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the forty-six-month sentence Defendant received after pleading guilty to various firearm offenses, holding that the district court erred in finding that Defendant was an unlawful drug user at the time of his offenses.Defendant was charged with dealing firearms without a license and illegally possessing a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A) and 922(o). In sentencing Defendant, the district court classified Defendant as an unlawful user of marijuana at the time of his offenses, thus applying U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)'s "prohibited person" enhancement. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that the government did not meet its burden of proving qualifying drug use. View "United States v. Espinoza-Roque" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated and reversed the judgment of the district court holding that two laws passed by Maine's Legislature in 2019 that amended the Maine Fair Credit Reporting Act, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, 1306 et seq. (Maine Act) were preempted under section 1681t(b)(1)(E) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., holding that remand was required.The amendments to the Maine Act were passed in order to regulate the reporting of overdue medical debt and debt resulting from economic abuse. Plaintiff, an industry group representing the "Big Three" credit reporting agencies, brought a facial preemption challenge to the laws. The district court concluded that the amendments were preempted by section 1681t(b)(1)(E). The First Circuit remanded the matter for further proceedings, holding (1) section 1681t(b)(1)(E) narrowly preempts state laws that impose requirements or prohibitions with respect to the specific subject matters regulated under section 1681c; and (2) the amendments were not preempted in their entirety. View "Consumer Data Industry Ass'n v. Frey" on Justia Law

In this appeal arising from the post-settlement process of apportioning a $300 million recovery between a class and its lawyers the First Circuit affirmed the district court's Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b) sanction of Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP (Lieff) and otherwise dismissed as unappealable Lieff's challenges to the district court's criticisms of Lieff's actions, holding that there was no error.Lieff served as one of the principal law firms representing a class of investors in a successful challenge to charges imposed by State Street Bank and Trust Company on foreign exchange products. The district court awarded a $60 million fee to the lawyers representing the class but formally sanctioned Lieff for engaging in misconduct without imposing any monetary penalty. The First Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in sanctioning Lieff; and (2) the remainder of Lieff's allegations of error were unappealable. View "Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Berns v. Labaton Sucharow LLP" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied a petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the denial of Appellant's application for adjustment of status on statutory and federal constitutional grounds, holding that there was no error.Appellant conceded removability but sought to remain in the country by applying for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. 1255(a). An immigration judge denied Appellant's application for adjustment of status, concluding that Appellant had not met his burden of showing that he merited a favorable exercise of discretion. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Appellant's petition for review, holding that Appellant's claims on appeal were without merit. View "Thomas v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit granted in part and denied in part Appellant's petition for review of the judgment of the board of immigration appeals (BIA) finding that Appellant was ineligible for asylum and denying her application for withholding of removal, holding that Appellant's application for withholding of removal should be remanded.Appellant, a native of Guatemala, applied for relief that included asylum and withholding of removal. The immigration judge (IJ) and the BIA denied relief. On appeal, the government conceded that Appellant's application for withholding of removal should be remanded due to the failure of the IJ and BIA to consider relevant aspects of Appellant's claims of past persecution. The First Circuit (1) vacated the denial of Appellant's application for withholding from removal, holding that the IJ and BIA erred by failing to consider certain evidence and by failing to provide her with an opportunity to explain why she could not provide certain corroborating evidence in connection with her request for withholding; and (2) held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of Appellant's request for asylum. View "Ixcuna-Garcia v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant Jose Mulero-Vargas and and Luis Merced-Marcia were charged with aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Both men entered guilty pleas to the counts. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by holding him responsible for two machine-guns. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court was entitled to draw a reasonable inference that Defendant, at the very least, constructively possessed the second machine-gun; and (2) Defendant's 168-month aggregate sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Mulero-Vargas" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court finding that Electric Boat Corp. had failed to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) for federal officer removal, holding that Electric Boat established the statutory requirements for removal.During the late-1960s, Michael Moore was allegedly exposed to asbestos during construction of a submarine, the USS Francis Scott Key, where he worked as an electronics officer. Moore and his wife (collectively, Moore), brought suit against Electric Board and others, alleging several state claims. Electric Boat removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442. Moore filed a motion to remand to state court, which the district court granted after finding that Electric Boat had failed to satisfy the requirements for federal officer removal under section 1442(a)(1). The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) the district court interpreted section 1442(a)(1) in a manner inconsistent with the 2011 congressional amendment to the statute; and (2) Electric Boat satisfied the standard for federal officer removal under section 1442(a)(1). View "Moore v. Electric Boat Corp." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss as to count one of Plaintiffs' complaint and reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings on counts two through four, holding that dismissal was improper as to the remaining three counts.Plaintiffs, S.R. and T.R. and their child N.R., brought this action against Raytheon Company, T.R.'s employer, after United Healthcare, which administered the company's health insurance plan, refused to pay for N.R.'s speech therapy, alleging various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq. The district court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss in full. The First Circuit held (1) the district court properly dismissed count one of the complaint; but (2) the dismissal of Plaintiffs' remaining claims was improper. View "N.R. v. Raytheon Co." on Justia Law