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

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court refusing to exercise its discretion to provide compassionate release to Defendant under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), as recently amended by the First Step Act (FSA), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 603(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (2018), holding that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying Defendant's motion.Approximately three decades ago, Defendant was convicted of several criminal offenses connected to his role in laundering more than $136 million for a Colombian drug cartel. The district court sentenced him to an aggregate 660-year term of immurement. The First Circuit affirmed. In 2020, Defendant moved for compassionate release based on health-related concerns and arguing that the unusual length of his prison term constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for his release. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was a sufficient basis for the district court's decision. View "United States v. Saccoccia" on Justia Law

In this action brought by a group of twenty-five acute-care hospitals in Puerto Rico that received disproportionate share hospital payments (DHS payments) from the government, the First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying relief on Plaintiffs' allegations that the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services improperly calculated their DSH payments, holding that the district court did not err.When Congress included hospitals in Puerto Rico in providing coverage for the DSH reimbursement program, the DSH payments were often substantially less than the DSH payments provided to similarly-situated hospitals in the states. This disparity was the result of the application to hospitals in Puerto Rico of the existing statutory formula used to calculate DSH payments to hospitals in the states. Plaintiffs brought this action challenging the Secretary's interpretation and application of the statutory formula, arguing that it was inconsistent with the Medicare Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The district court denied relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the Secretary did not err in implementing the statute and that Plaintiffs failed to show that they were the victims of any unconstitutional discrimination by the Secretary. View "Asociacion Hospital del Maestro, Inc. v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with her conviction for maintaining a drug-involved premises, holding that the lack of evidence on the critical issue in this case required that the case be remanded for resentencing.The trial court sentenced Defendant to a below-the-range term of immurement of thirty-four months, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Defendant argued that the record evidence did not support the district court's determination that Defendant, above and beyond providing her apartment as a drug-involved premises, could be said to have participated in the drug operation, and therefore, the district court erred by declining to apply the offense-level cap limned in U.S.S.G. 2D1.8(a). The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that the record did not permit a reasoned determination that Defendant participated in the drug operation within the meaning of section 2D1.8(a)(2). View "United States v. Patch" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence imposed after he entered a guilty plea to one count of machine-gun possession, holding that the district court failed to offer an adequate explanation for its upward variance from the applicable sentencing range under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.The district court imposed a variant sentence of forty-two months' imprisonment, twelve months more than the top of the Guidelines sentencing range. On appeal, Defendant argued that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that the district court committed procedural error when it failed to offer an adequate explanation for its upward variance. View "United States v. Garcia-Perez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's forty-eight-month prison sentence that the district court imposed after Defendant entered a guilty plea to one count of firearm possession, holding that resentencing was required in this case.The district court imposed a variant sentence of forty-eight months - eighteen months more than the top of the guidelines sentencing range and twice the length of the sentence that both parties recommended. On appeal, Defendant challenged both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court committed plain procedural error by imposing an upward variance without adequate explanation. View "United States v. Carrasquillo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (BAP) dismissing this appeal as moot, holding that this appeal was moot.In 2019, Appellant refiled for chapter 13 bankruptcy protection. Briry, LLC filed a motion in the bankruptcy case seeking payment to it of certain insurance funds. The bankruptcy court granted the motion and ordered the trustee to pay over the insurance funds to Briry. Thereafter, Appellant's bankruptcy was dismissed. Appellant appealed to the BAP challenging the bankruptcy court's order releasing the insurance funds to Briry. The BAP dismissed the appeal, concluding that it had been rendered moot by the dismissal of the bankruptcy case. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that when the bankruptcy case was dismissed, this appeal became moot. View "Sundaram v. Briry, LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed in connection with Defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiring to possess with intent to distribute the same, holding that there was no error in the sentence.After a lengthy sentencing proceeding, the district court denied Defendant safety-valve relief, concluding that Defendant had not met her duty of disclosure to the government under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(5). The court proceeded to impose the mandatory five-year term of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that she met the disclosure obligation of section 3553(f)(5). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant was ineligible for safety-valve relief because she failed truthfully and completely to disclose the information that she possessed concerning her offense of conviction. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) Title III court allowing certain expenses incurred by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) under a contract entered into with LUMA Energy, LLC and LUMA Energy ServCo, LLC (collectively, LUMA) as entitled to administrative expense priority pursuant to section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, holding that there was no error.In 2017, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (FOMB) filed for bankruptcy on behalf of PREPA. In 2020, PREPA entered into a contract with LUMA, a private consortium, to transfer the operations and management of PREPA to LUMA. At issue was whether the Title III court erred in allowing expenses incurred by PREPA under the contract as entitled to administrative expense priority. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) section 503(b)(1)(A) applies in Title III cases; (2) the Title III court did not abuse its discretion in applying the requirements of section 503(b)(1)(A); and (3) the Title III court correctly held that 48 U.S.C. 2126(e) prevents it from reviewing challenges to FOMB's certification decision. View "Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Eléctrica y Riego v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the PROMESA Title III court granting the motion of the Financial Oversight and Management Board to assume certain long-term power supply contracts on behalf of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) under 11 U.S.C. 365 and 48 U.S.C. 2161, holding that there was no clear error.On appeal, Appellants - PREPA's primary labor union, an energy company that had other contracts with PREPA, and multiple environmental groups - argued that the Board abused the assumption procedure set forth in section 365 to avoid the competitive bidding process ordinarily required for long-term power supply contracts under Commonwealth law. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Board's motion to assume was ripe for resolution by the Title III court and remained so on appeal; and (2) the Title III court properly granted the Board's motion to assume the renegotiated contracts under the customary standards of section 365(a). View "Campamento Contra Las Cenizas v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's eight-month sentence for unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), holding that the bare criminal complaint did not provide reliable evidence to support the district court's finding that Defendant had previously used a weapon to cut another person.Defendant's sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines was eight to fourteen months. Defendant urged the district court to issue a below-Guidelines sentence based on, among other grounds, the fact that unlawful reentry is a non-violent, victimless crimes. In sentencing Defendant to eight months' imprisonment the district court relied upon allegations in a Puerto Rico complaint that Defendant had previously used a weapon to cut another person. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court abused its discretion by relying on a bare allegation that was both challenged by Defendant and unsupported by any other indicia of reliability to justify a longer sentence than otherwise would have been imposed. View "United States v. Castillo-Torres" on Justia Law