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

The First Circuit vacated the amended judgment of the district court amending the restitution portion of Defendant's sentence, holding that the district court was divested of jurisdiction over the restitution order once the order was entered as part of Defendant's final criminal judgment.In 2011, the district court imposed a criminal sentence against Defendant. The original sentence included a restitution order to the corporate victim payee. In 2020, the district court amended the restitution portion of the sentence to substitute the receiver of the corporate victim as the restitution recipient. The First Circuit reversed the amended restitution order, holding (1) the district court invoked Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 for an amendment that could not be properly made under it; and (2) therefore, the district court acted without jurisdiction. View "United States v. Harvey" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized during a protective search of a car, holding that the actual-fear analysis set forth in United States v. Lott, 870 F.2d 778 (1st Cir. 1989), is no longer controlling.In Lott, the First Circuit held that officers cannot do a frisk for weapons where the officers were not actually concerned for their safety. The district judge in this case granted Defendant's motion to suppress after finding that while officers had an objectively reasonable basis to search the car, they had no subjective concerns for their safety. The First Circuit reversed the judge's evidence suppression and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that Lott is abrogated to the extent that it is inconsistent with the opinion in this case. View "United States v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's federal claims seeking to hold private parties liable as state actors under 42 U.S.C. 1983, holding that the district court did not err in granting Defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.In this case arising from eviction proceedings, Plaintiff brought this suit against Management Administration Services Corporation and its administrator, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments related to a search of her apartment, violations of due process related to rent-adjustment negotiations and eviction proceedings, and pendant claims for emotional distress. In response to Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff argued that Defendants were performing a function traditionally and exclusively reserved to the state. The district court dismissed the complaint. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to ground a plausible conclusion that the function Defendants performed was, by tradition, an exclusive prerogative of the state. View "Cruz-Arce v. Management Administration Services Corp." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for attempted illegal reentry into the United States, holding that the district court did not err in refusing Defendant's preferred jury instructions and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow presentation of a duress defense.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his requested jury instructions as to the requisite level of intent and in refusing to admit his petition for asylum into evidence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant did not make a threshold showing of duress the district court the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on this affirmative defense; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Defendant to present a duress defense. View "United States v. Florentino-Rosario" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, robbery, and discharging and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, holding that there was no error in Defendant's convictions or sentence.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in admitting hearsay evidence and erred in instructing the jury on vicarious liability. Defendant further argued that the district court erroneously applied the official-victim adjustment in United States Sentencing Guidelines 3A1.2. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) any impermissible inference of guilt drawn from the contested statements was harmless; (2) the district court's jury instructions were not incorrect or misleading as to the two theories of vicarious liability; and (3) there was no error in the district court's Sentencing Guidelines calculation. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of mailing threatening communications through the United States Postal Service, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 876(c), holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.After a jury found Defendant guilty of both counts of mailing threatening communications Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the evidence sufficed to permit a rational jury to find Defendant guilty of both counts. On appeal, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence with respect only to the third element of the offense. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that a rational jury could have found that Defendant knew his statements would be interpreted as true threats of physical harm. View "United States v. Oliver" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court rejecting the claims of Plaintiffs John Doe and Ben Bloggs that their high school discipline was unconstitutional, holding that the district court properly entered judgment in favor of Hopkinton Public Schools on all counts.Following an investigation, Hopkinton High School determined that eight students on the school hockey team, including Plaintiffs, had bullied their fellow hockey team member, and suspended each hockey player for a number of days. In this appeal from the dismissal of their complaint, Plaintiffs argued that the discipline violated their First Amendment rights, the "emotional harm" prong of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, 370 is unconstitutional, and that the punishment violated their student speech rights under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, 82. The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding (1) the school did not violate Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights; (2) Plaintiffs' challenges to the "emotional harm" prong of the Massachusetts statute and school policy were moot; and (3) the school did not violate Plaintiffs' rights under the Massachusetts student speech statute. View "Doe v. Hopkinton Public Schools" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss this action seeking damages for injuries received in a boating accident, holding that this case was allowed to proceed in Plaintiffs' chosen forum.Plaintiffs were ferrying in a small boat when another boat, owned by Defendant, plowed into Plaintiffs' boat and sunk it. The crash also left one of the Plaintiffs with serious personal injuries. Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant, a U.S. citizen, in Massachusetts, bringing claims for maritime negligence, loss of consortium, and property damages. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for forum non conveniens, arguing that Greece was the most appropriate venue for the case. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion in failing to hold Defendant to his burden of showing that the public and private interest factors displaced the presumption weighing in favor of Plaintiffs' initial forum of choice. View "Curtis v. Galakatos" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed on a limited basis the district court's ruling that Plaintiffs suit must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that dismissal was required.Plaintiff, a New York resident, brought this suit over a for-profit Israeli corporation that ranked the performance of United States investment analysts, claiming that that company defamed her in Massachusetts by posting a low rating of her professional performance. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to adduce evidence of specific facts sufficient to satisfy the requirements of constitutional due process for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. View "Lin v. TipRanks, Ltd." on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the judgment of the district court granting a motion to compel arbitration filed by the personal representative of the estate of a famous American artist (Estate), dismissing an art publisher's (Publisher) motion for a preliminary injunction as moot, and eventually dismissing the case, holding that the district court erred.At issue was an agreement between the Estate and Publisher. Publisher asserted that the parties' original contract, which included an agreement to arbitration, was terminated and supplanted by a superseding contract that did not contain an arbitration provision. In question was whether the arbitrability of the parties' dispute about the newer contract's enforceability and impact on the earlier agreement to arbitrate should be decided by the court or by arbitrators. The district court concluded that the gateway question of arbitrability was for the arbitrators. The First Circuit reversed, holding that it is the court, and not the arbitrators, that must resolve the disagreement in this case. View "McKenzie v. Brannan" on Justia Law