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

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Francis Lang's petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to vacate his Massachusetts conviction for murder in the first degree, holding that the district court did not err in denying the petition.Lang was convicted in a Massachusetts court for murder in the first degree. In this action, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, Lang sought to vacate his conviction, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate Lang's mental health history. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). View "Lang v. DeMoura" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court entering summary judgment for Appellees and dismissing Appellant's complaint invoking 42 U.S.C. 1983 and claiming false arrest, malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, holding that there was no error.Appellant was attempting to enforce his perceived property rights when he unilaterally closed access to the portion of Cedar Street that crossed his property. A ruckus ensued, and Appellant was arrested for disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct. Appellant subsequently brought this action against a number of municipal actors, including the police officers who responded to the scene. The district court entered summary judgment for Appellees. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment against Appellant. View "Finamore v. Miglionico" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's twelve-year sentence imposed in connection with his conviction for bank robbery, holding that none of Defendant's contentions on appeal had merit.A jury found Defendant guilty of one count of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a). In sentencing Defendant, the district court varied downward, sentencing him to a prison term of 144 months. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in classifying him as a career offender. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in treating Defendant's prior state-court marijuana conviction as a controlled substance offense under the career-offender provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. View "United States v. Crocco" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the decision of the district court granting Appellants' motions brought under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 for a post-verdict judgment of acquittal on the charge of conspiring to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, holding that the district court erred in granting the motions.These consolidated appeals stemmed from the federal criminal investigation into the operations of the New England Compounding Center (NECC), a licensed pharmacy, after patients across the country became ill or died from a contaminated medication. Appellants were Sharon Carter and Gregory Conigliaro, who were, respectively, NECC's former director of operations and NECC's former vice president and general manager. A jury found both Appellants guilty of violating section 371. The district court granted Appellants' motions for a judgment of acquittal on the section 371 count. The First Circuit reversed, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the convictions. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendants' convictions connected with the murder of Steven DiSarro, holding that Defendants were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error.Defendants, Francis Salemme and Paul Weadick, were convicted of the 1993 murder of DiSarro. At the time of the murder, Salemme was the boss of a criminal organization known as the New England La Cosa Nostra. Defendants murdered DiSarro to prevent him from talking with federal agents about his activities with Salemme, Weadick and Salemme's son. On appeal, Defendants challenged the trial court's admission of a significant amount of evidence concerning the prior criminal activities of Salemme and several witnesses. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in admitting the evidence. View "United States v. Weadick" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendant and dismissing Plaintiff's action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq, holding that summary judgment was properly granted.Plaintiff was a participant in her employer's long-term disability plan, which was insured and administered by Defendant, Unum Life Insurance Company of America, and governed by ERISA. In 2011, Plaintiff was granted benefits under the plan. In 2015, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's benefits. Plaintiff brought this action seeking recovery and reinstatement of her benefits. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's requirement that Plaintiff provide objective evidence of her functional limitations in order to avoid a limitation in the plan was reasonable; and (2) substantial evidence supported Defendant's determination that Plaintiff lacked objective proof in her functional limitations. View "Ovist v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the decision of the district court refusing to quash subpoenas seeking discovery from Rhode Island public officials and a state consultant, holding that Petitioners were entitled to a writ of advisory mandamus reversing the decision to allow the discovery sought from Rhode Island's former governor, the former speaker of Rhode Island's legislature, and former state representative.In these consolidated cases Petitioners sought to reverse the district court's decision refusing to quash subpoenas seeking discovery from Rhode Island public officials and a state consultant. Proponents of the discovery - trucking interests - asserted that the discovery was reasonably calculated to provide evidence that Rhode Island elected officials intended to discriminate against interstate commerce in charging bridge tolls. The First Circuit issued a writ of advisory mandamus reversing the decision to allow the discovery sought from certain Rhode Island public officials, holding that the district court erred in determining that the proponents' interest in obtaining evidence of the state officials' subject motives outweighed the comity considerations implicated by the subpoenas. View "American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Raimondo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of making false statements on certain government forms, theft of government property, and failing to disclose an event that affected Defendant's right to Social Security payments, holding that Defendant's claims on appeal were without merit.Defendant suffered a work injury while working as a mechanic for the United States Postal Service (USPS) and began receiving worker's compensation and Social Security disability benefits. After Defendant had been receiving benefits for several years, the USPS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) began investigating the case and determined that Defendant had continued working and volunteering with his union without disclosing the activities as required. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported the convictions; (2) the district court properly granted the government's motion in limine preventing Defendant from presenting certain evidence; and (3) there was no error in the sentence imposed by the district court. View "United States v. Rivera-Ortiz" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress his federal New Hampshire prosecution on double jeopardy grounds, holding that Defendant's double jeopardy rights did not attach in earlier Maine criminal proceedings.In 2018, Defendant was indicted in the District of Maine with criminal offenses. On January 31, 2020, the United States filed a motion to dismiss the indictment without prejudice. Defendant filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal or dismissal with prejudice, arguing that, given the government's accompanying admission that it could not prove its case and his lengthy pretrial detention, due process required an acquittal or dismissal with prejudice. The district court denied the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice. Also on January 31, 2020, the United States filed a criminal complaint in the New Hampshire district court. A grand jury issued an indictment. Defendant moved to dismiss count two on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that jeopardy did not attach to Defendant's Maine criminal proceedings. View "United States v. Suazo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed Appellant's appeal of an order issued by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (BAP) that found Appellant, a Chapter 7 debtor, had no standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order overruling his objection to a proof of claim filed by Scotiabank de Puerto Rico, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction.The BAP concluded that Appellant did not have appellate standing to challenge the subject order because he had failed to demonstrate that the order had directly or adversely affected his pecuniary interests. Accordingly, the BAP entered judgment dismissing the appeal. The First Circuit dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that Appellant failed to establish that the challenged order had a direct and immediate impact on his pecuniary interests. View "Neira Rivera v. Scotiabank de Puerto Rico" on Justia Law