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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute entered after Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, holding that Defendant's argument that his plea was invalid was without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that his plea was invalid because he entered it without knowing that he was waiving his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the drugs, gun, and statements he had made following his arrest. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, even if there was error, it was not clear or obvious. View "United States v. Casiano-Santana" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of four counts of wire fraud and one count of obstruction of justice and his 156-month incarcerate sentence, holding that Defendant was fairly tried before a competent judge and an impartial jury, was justly convicted, and was lawfully sentenced.On appeal, Defendant raised two assertions of trial error and several claims of sentencing error. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding (1) an implication of judicial bias was unwarranted; (2) any impropriety on the part of the prosecutor did not affect or influence the jury in any way; and (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his multiple claims of sentencing error. View "United States v. Kuljko" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that the board game "The Game of Life" qualified as a "work for hire" under the Copyright Act of 1909.This case stemmed from a dispute between Rueben Klamer, a toy developer who came up with the initial concept of the game before it was introduced in 1960 by the Milton Bradley Company, and Bill Markham, a game designer that Klamer recruited to design and create the actual game prototype. Markham's successors-in-interest sued Klamer and other defendants seeking a declaration that they possessed "termination rights" under the 1976 Copyright Act. Termination rights, however, do not extend to "work[s] made for hire." The district court concluded that the game was a work for hire, and therefore, Markham's successors-in-interest lacked termination rights. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the game was a work for hire and that no termination rights existed. View "Markham Concepts, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings holding that this case came within the jurisdictional reach of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185(a), and that the district court did not err either in denying Plaintiff's motion to remand or in granting judgment for the pleadings for Defendant.Plaintiff, an employee of Defendant, brought this action in a Massachusetts state court asserting violations of the Commonwealth's labor laws. Plaintiff sought recovery of compensation for unpaid wages and expenses, unpaid overtime, and damages for Defendant's alleged failure to account for her travel time and to maintain required payroll records. Defendant removed the suit to federal district court. Plaintiff moved to remand the case, arguing that her claims arose exclusively under state law. The district court denied the remand motion and subsequently granted Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "Rose v. RTN Federal Credit Union" on Justia Law

The First Circuit rejected the efforts of the two defendants in this consolidated appeal to retroactively vacate the forfeiture judgment against them, holding that neither defendant was entitled to relief on their claims of error.The defendants in this case were Donna Saccoccia and her brother, Vincent Hurley. Defendants were convicted for their role in a money laundering conspiracy controlled by Donna's husband, Stephen Saccoccia. In this appeal, Defendants appealed the district court's denial of Donna's petition for a writ of error coram nobis - a petition that Hurley sought to adopt - seeking vacate of a forfeiture judgment of approximately $136 million in proceeds from the conspiracy, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017), should be applied retroactively to invalidate the forfeiture judgments against them. The First Circuit denied relief, holding (1) Donna's efforts to apply Honeycutt retroactively were unavailing for the same grounds applicable to Stephen, whose same attempt this Court recently rejected; and (2) Hurley waived his argument on appeal. View "United States v. Saccoccia" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's prison sentence for possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a), holding that Defendant invited any error in regards to his challenge to the determination of his criminal history category.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base. At the sentencing hearing, the district court acknowledged that the parties recommended a statutory minimum sentence of sixty months' imprisonment. The district court proceeded to impose an eighty-four-month prison sentence to be followed by five years of supervised release. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in applying the "intervening arrest" rule in section 4A1.2(a)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines when determining his criminal history. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, through his counsel, Defendant invited any error in that respect. View "United States v. Miranda-Carmona" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court holding that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) were not subject to Appellants' Fifth Amendment claims, holding that there was no error.Appellants obtained loans secured by mortgages on their real property in Rhode Island. The loans and mortgages were later sold to Fannie Mae while the FHFA was acting as Fannie Mae's conservator. Consistent with Rhode Island law, when Appellants defaulted on their loans Fannie Mae conducted nonjudicial foreclosure sales of the mortgaged properties. Appellants brought suit in a federal district court, arguing that the nonjudicial foreclosure sales violated their procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The district court dismissed those claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that FHFA and Fannie Mae were not government actors subject to Appellants' due process claims. View "Montilla v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentence for one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute heroin and one count of distribution of heroin, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.For the convictions, the district court imposed a downward variant sentence of forty-eight months' imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding certain coconspirator statements were non-hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) and admitting the statements into evidence; (2) Defendant waived her claim of error regarding the propriety of the jury instructions about the elements of the offenses; and (3) the district court did not clearly err by applying a three-level mitigating role reduction under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2 rather than a four-level minimal role reduction. View "United States v. Ruiz" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court imposing a five-year prison sentence upon Defendant for committing a federal firearms offense, holding that the district court erred in resolving what constitutes a "controlled substance" within the meaning of section 2K2.1(a)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in applying at his sentencing the enhancement set forth in section 2K2.1(a)(2), which subjects a defendant who has been convicted of a 18 U.S.C. 922(g) offense to a higher base offense level under the Guidelines if he committed the offense "subsequent to sustaining at least two felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense." Specifically, Defendant argued that his prior Massachusetts conviction for possession with intent to distribute "marihuana" did not qualify as a conviction of a "controlled substance offense" under section 2K2.1(a)(2). The First Circuit vacated the judgment below, holding that Defendant's Massachusetts conviction was not a conviction of a "controlled substance offense" within the meaning of that term as it was used in the version of section 2K2.1(a)(2) that was applicable at Defendant's sentencing. View "United States v. Abdulaziz" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for possessing and aiding and abetting the possession of drugs with intent to distribute them and possessing and aiding and abetting the possession of a gun in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, holding that Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his convictions.On appeal, Defendant challenged four of the trial judge's evidentiary rulings and three jury instructions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) any error in the district court's evidentiary rulings was harmless; and (2) the district court committed no reversible error in its instructions to the jury. View "United States v. Rivera-Galindez" on Justia Law