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

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to a variety of drug and firearm offenses and sentencing him to 160 months' imprisonment, holding that Defendant should have been allowed to withdraw his plea.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to certain charged offenses in exchange for a 120-month sentence. Prior to sentencing, Defendant breached the plea agreement by assaulting a fellow inmate. Thereafter, the government withdrew from the agreement. Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to 160 months' imprisonment. The First Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, there was a fair and just reason for the withdrawal of Defendant's plea, and the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow Defendant to withdraw his plea. View "United States v. Gardner" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence imposed after he pled guilty to drug and firearm conspiracy counts, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant was a manager or supervisor of the drug conspiracy and applying a three-level enhancement.In sentencing Defendant, the district court found that he qualified for a three-level enhancement for being a manager or supervisor of the drug and firearm conspiracies, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(b). On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court's conclusion that he was a manager or supervisor of the drug conspiracy because he directed people to buy firearms and told them where to drive was erroneous. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, in light of the evidence, the district court correctly applied the section 3B1.1(b) enhancement. View "United States v. McKinney" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's claims for mandamus and relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), vacated the dismissal of Appellant's equal protection and due process claims and held that certain of the challenged rules challenged by Appellant were arbitrary and unenforceable.Appellant, a law firm, sued the Social Security Administration (SSA) challenging "the [SSA]'s byzantine and irrational rules that govern payment pf attorney's fees in Social Security disability cases." The district court dismissed Appellant's mandamus and APA claims on the grounds that sovereign immunity barred the mandamus claim and that the firm's challenges to the agency's fee-paying procedures were statutorily barred. The court later granted summary judgment for the SSA on the remaining three claims. The First Circuit held (1) mandamus relief was unavailable here because Appellant had another avenue for obtaining relief; and (2) the SSA's practice of denying attorneys fees under certain circumstances was arbitrary, and therefore, the rule must be eliminated. View "Marasco & Nesselbush, LLP v. Collins" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence Defendant received upon resentencing after he was convicted on two drug-related charges, holding that there was no error in the proceedings.This Court previously vacated Defendant's sentence. On remand, the district court imposed a low-end eighty-four-month term of immurement to be followed by six years of supervised release. Defendant appealed, challenging his six-year mandatory minimum term of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by failing to make a necessary finding; and (2) the court did not find facts that should have been reserved for a jury. View "United States v. Rabb" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting a preliminary injunction to the American Institute for Foreign Study, Inc. to enjoin class arbitration in this dispute with an au pair, holding that the agreement between the parties did not authorize class arbitration, and the au pair's claim was moot.The Institute, which places au pairs with host families in the United States, entered into a contract with Plaintiff, an au pair from Spain, that required the parties to arbitrate their disputes. Plaintiff filed a class arbitration demand against the Institute and its CEO, William Gertz (together, Defendants). Defendants subsequently filed suit seeking to enjoin class arbitration. The district court denied relief to Gertz and granted a preliminary injunction to the Institute. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the agreement did not provide an affirmative basis to conclude that the parties agreed to class arbitration; and (2) Gertz's claim was moot. View "American Institute for Foreign Study, Inc. v. Fernandez-Jimenez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of Defendants, denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and denying Plaintiff's motion to file a third amended complaint, holding that Defendant sufficiently warned investors about the vulnerability of its manufacturing infrastructure so that Plaintiff knew of the investment risks when he purchased his shares.Plaintiff was an investor who lost money when he bought stock in Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. and watched the value plummet soon after that purchase. Plaintiff sued Keryx and its executives, alleging that Keryx's inadequate disclosures about its manufacturing defects amounted to securities fraud. The district court allowed Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. View "Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's suit brought against Defendant, his employer, asserting claims of age-based discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Puerto Rico's statutory analog, holding that this Court will not adopt any version of the single filing rule that would excuse the procedural failings associated with Plaintiff's suit.In moving to dismiss the complaint, Defendant asserted that Plaintiff neglected to first file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. Plaintiff argued in response that the district court should adopt and apply the "single filing rule," otherwise known as the "piggyback rule," which would allow him to vicariously satisfy his exhaustion obligation by relying upon a timely-filed administrative complaint against his employer made by a similarly-situated plaintiff. The district court declined to adopt the single filing rule, dismissed Plaintiff's ADEA claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Puerto Rico law claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint. View "Perez-Abreu v. Metropol Hato Rey LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to a 130-month term of immurement and refusing to grant him an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and to petit larceny. The district court imposed a downwardly variant sentence of 130 months' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err in denying Defendant an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility; and (2) Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. DeJesus" on Justia Law

In this en banc decision involving a real property dispute, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court holding that the "Penobscot Indian Reservation" (the Reservation) does not include the waters and submerged lands constituting the riverbed of the six-mile stretch of the Penobscot River known as the Main Stem, holding that the district court did not err.The Penobscot Nation sued the State of Maine and various state officials seeking a declaratory judgment that the Nation had exclusive regulatory authority over the Main Stem and a declaratory judgment that the Nation had sustenance fishing rights in the Main Stem. The district court declared that the Reservation does not include the waters of the Main Stem or the submerged lands of the riverbed beneath it but that the Nation had sustenance fishing rights in the Main Stem. A divided panel of the First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part. The First Circuit subsequently vacated the panel opinion and granted rehearing en banc. The Court then held (1) the Reservation does not include the waters and submerged lands constituting the riverbed of the Main Stem; and (2) as to the Nation's claim that Maine infringed on its fishing rights, the claim was not ripe and the Nation lacked standing. View "United States v. Frey" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the federal convictions and sentences of Defendants - Herzzon Sandoval, Edwin Guzman, Erick Argueta Larios, and Cesar Martinez - stemming from a federal criminal investigation into La Mara Salvatrucha, a transnational criminal organization, in Massachusetts, holding that there was no prejudicial error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Defendants' sufficiency of the evidence challenges to their respective convictions were without merit; (2) there was no merit to Defendants' claims that the district court erred in denying a motion for a continuance due to pretrial publicity or in denying their motion for a mistrial; (3) Defendants' challenges to the court's evidentiary rulings failed; (4) challenges concerning purported misstatements of the evidence in the government's closing argument and purported instructional errors provided no basis for overturning Defendants' convictions; and (5) Defendants' challenges to their sentences failed. View "United States v. Sandoval" on Justia Law