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

Donald Turner pleaded guilty to bank robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At the time of these offenses, Turner was on supervised release and admitted to related violations. Due to his history of violent felonies, Turner was designated an armed career criminal, resulting in an advisory sentencing guideline range of 180 to 210 months. The district court sentenced him to 210 months for the new offenses and an additional 24 months for the supervised release violations, to be served consecutively.Previously, Turner had been convicted of multiple bank robberies. In 2006, he committed two bank robberies in Maine, leading to a 60-month sentence. In 2011, while on supervised release, he committed another bank robbery and was sentenced to 72 months, plus 24 months for the supervised release violation. In 2020, while again on supervised release, Turner committed another bank robbery, leading to his current charges.Turner appealed, arguing that his felon-in-possession conviction violated his Second Amendment rights, that the district court committed procedural and substantive errors in sentencing, and that the court misapprehended its discretion regarding the consecutive supervised release sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed these claims.The First Circuit held that Turner waived his Second Amendment claim by not timely moving to dismiss the felon-in-possession count as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12. The court found that the district court imposed a procedurally sound and substantively reasonable sentence. The court also determined that the district court did not believe it was required to impose a consecutive revocation sentence but chose to do so based on sentencing considerations. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the judgments. View "US v. Turner" on Justia Law

A Brazilian family of three, William Reginaldo Rodrigues, Debora Soares Gomes Rodrigues, and their son, W.T.S.R., entered the United States without inspection and were charged with being in the country without admission or parole. They sought asylum and withholding of removal, claiming fear of persecution from drug traffickers due to a debt owed by Mr. Rodrigues's brother-in-law, Daniel, and from the Gardingo family, a powerful political family in Brazil. Mr. Rodrigues testified that drug traffickers threatened Daniel and that the Gardingo family coerced employees to support their political candidates, but admitted that neither group had directly harmed or threatened his family.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Mr. Rodrigues's testimony credible but concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ determined that the Petitioners had not shown that they would be singled out for persecution by either the drug traffickers or the Gardingo family. Consequently, the IJ denied their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, finding no clear error or compelling reason to overturn it.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA's decision. The court found that the IJ's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence, noting that generalized country conditions reports and Mr. Rodrigues's testimony did not demonstrate a specific threat to the Petitioners. The court also agreed that the Petitioners failed to show an objectively reasonable fear of persecution based on their political opinion, as there was no evidence that the Gardingo family was aware of or would target Mr. Rodrigues for his political beliefs. The petition for review was denied. View "Rodrigues v. Garland" on Justia Law

Joel Anthony Cockerham, the petitioner, is confined at a federal facility in Massachusetts after being civilly committed under 18 U.S.C. § 4243 by a federal district court in the Northern District of Mississippi. Cockerham filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking discharge from his commitment and compensation for damages. He argued that his continued confinement was unlawful and sought non-conditional release.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed Cockerham's habeas petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning that he should have sought relief from the committing court under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h). The court also denied Cockerham's motion to amend his petition, concluding that amendment would be futile because the amended petition also sought relief from confinement, which should be addressed by the committing court.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of Cockerham's original habeas petition, agreeing that § 4247(h) provides a mechanism for seeking discharge and that Cockerham had not shown that this remedy was inadequate or unavailable. However, the court vacated and remanded the District Court's ruling on the motion to amend. The appellate court found that Cockerham's proposed amended petition, which challenged the suitability of his confinement at FMC Devens and sought transfer to a less restrictive facility, was distinct from a claim for discharge and could potentially be addressed under § 2241. The court instructed the District Court to reconsider whether the amended claims could be heard under § 2241 or if they must be brought under § 4247(h). View "Cockerham v. Boncher" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2) after entering a straight guilty plea. He was sentenced to forty-eight months' imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. The defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The case originated when the defendant was a passenger in a car stopped by police for having darkly tinted windows. During the stop, the driver reached for a fanny pack containing a firearm, which was visible to the officer. Both the driver and the defendant admitted to owning the firearm and knowing it was modified to function as a fully automatic weapon. The defendant was charged with illegal possession of a machine gun.After his arrest, the defendant was released under supervision but violated the terms of his release by testing positive for marijuana multiple times. He explained that he used marijuana to cope with the deaths of several family members. Despite these violations, the court took no action before his sentencing hearing.At sentencing, the district court considered the defendant's criminal history, the nature of the offense, and his repeated violations of pretrial release. The court also noted the dangerousness of modified machine guns and the high rate of gun violence in Puerto Rico. The court imposed a sentence above the guidelines range, citing the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense and to promote respect for the law.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court did not commit procedural error and that the sentence was substantively reasonable. The appellate court affirmed the sentence, concluding that the district court provided a plausible rationale for the upward variance and adequately considered the defendant's individual circumstances. View "United States v. Cordero-Velazquez" on Justia Law

Sysco Machinery Corp. ("Sysco"), a Taiwanese company, sued two other Taiwanese companies, Cymtek Solutions, Inc. ("Cymtek") and Cymmetrik Enterprise Co. Ltd. ("Cymmetrik"), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Sysco alleged that Cymtek and Cymmetrik infringed its copyrights and misappropriated its trade secrets related to a rotary die-cutting machine developed in Taiwan. The alleged infringing activities occurred in Taiwan, but Sysco claimed that the effects of these activities extended to the United States.Sysco initially pursued legal action in Taiwan's Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (IPCC) and obtained a preliminary injunction against Cymtek and its employees. However, the proceedings in Taiwan are ongoing. Sysco then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which it voluntarily dismissed. Subsequently, Sysco filed the current lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts, asserting claims of trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, unfair and deceptive acts, and tortious interference.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, concluding that Taiwan was a more appropriate forum for the dispute. Sysco appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.The First Circuit reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion and affirmed the dismissal. The court held that Taiwan was an adequate alternative forum, as it could exercise jurisdiction over the parties and provide sufficient remedies for the alleged intellectual property violations. The court also found that the private and public interest factors favored litigation in Taiwan, given that the majority of evidence and witnesses were located there, and the alleged infringing activities primarily occurred in Taiwan. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens. View "Sysco Machinery Corp. v. Cymtek Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Djuna Goncalves was indicted and pleaded guilty to eight counts of drug and firearm-related charges. He reserved the right to appeal a sentence exceeding 180 months. Goncalves was sentenced to 230 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release. He appealed, arguing that the district court improperly applied a two-level enhancement for his role as an organizer, leader, supervisor, or manager under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c).The District Court of Massachusetts initially handled the case. Goncalves did not dispute the factual basis for his plea or the guideline calculations, except for the enhancement for his role in the criminal activity. The district court applied a two-level enhancement, concluding that Goncalves was a manager or supervisor of his family members involved in the drug trafficking operation. This resulted in a total offense level of 31 and a guidelines range of 151 to 188 months, plus a mandatory consecutive sentence for firearm possession.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the two-level enhancement, finding insufficient evidence that Goncalves exercised control over, managed, organized, or supervised another participant. The court noted that while Goncalves gave instructions during a drug transaction, there was no evidence that these instructions were obeyed, which is necessary to prove managerial or supervisory authority. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the enhancement. View "United States v. Goncalves" on Justia Law

Janine Cavalcanti Viana Guedes and her husband, Jose Mauricio Oliveira Guedes Jr., entered the United States on B-2 nonimmigrant visas in 2017. Viana Guedes later applied for an F-1 student visa, and her husband received derivative beneficiary status. In 2019, Viana Guedes filed an I-140 petition for an EB-2 classification and sought a National Interest Waiver (NIW) to bypass the job offer requirement. USCIS initially approved her I-140 petition and NIW but later denied her adjustment of status application, citing misrepresentations and non-compliance with visa requirements.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the appellants' case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court found that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) and the Supreme Court's decision in Patel v. Garland precluded judicial review of the USCIS's denial of their adjustment of status applications and the alleged revocation of Viana Guedes' I-140 petition and NIW.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) barred judicial review of the USCIS's denial of the adjustment of status applications. Additionally, the court found that the alleged revocations of the I-140 petition and NIW were unreviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), as these decisions were within the discretion of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security. The court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed the appellants' claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Viana Guedes v. Mayorkas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Kimberly A. Ripoli, a decorated veteran, claimed she experienced gender-based discrimination when terminated from her role as Associate Director of the Rhode Island Office of Veterans Affairs (OVA). She sued the State of Rhode Island, Department of Human Services, Office of Veterans Affairs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various Rhode Island statutes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State on all claims.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted summary judgment for the State, dismissing Ripoli's claims of gender-based discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. Ripoli did not address the district court's adverse rulings on her retaliation or hostile work environment claims in her appeal, leaving those rulings intact.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court's order on Ripoli's disparate treatment claims, finding that she had established a prima facie case of discrimination and raised genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the State's reasons for her termination were pretextual. The court noted that Ripoli presented evidence suggesting her role was not redundant, that the reorganization was not driven by budgetary constraints, and that she was replaced by a less-qualified heterosexual male. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment on Ripoli's retaliation and hostile work environment claims, as she did not pursue these on appeal. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Ripoli v. Rhode Island Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

The petitioners, Fidel Angel Lopez Quinteros, Evelyn de Los Angeles Polanco Ortiz, and their minor child A.A.L.P., are natives and citizens of El Salvador. They were issued Notices to Appear by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2021, charging them with being present in the United States without admission or parole. The petitioners conceded their removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). A.A.L.P. was listed as a derivative beneficiary on Lopez's application. The petition for review challenges only the denial of their asylum applications.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Lopez and Polanco's testimonies credible but denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The IJ concluded that the gang's threats were motivated by financial gain rather than the petitioners' membership in particular social groups. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision on asylum and withholding of removal and deemed the CAT claims waived as they were not meaningfully challenged.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the petitioners' claim that the BIA erred by not remanding to correct the hearing transcript, as this issue was not exhausted before the BIA. The court also found no merit in the petitioners' contention that the agency failed to engage in a proper mixed-motive analysis. However, the court held that the BIA's finding of no nexus between Polanco's persecution and her familial relationship to Lopez was not supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that Polanco's family status was a central reason for the gang's threats against her. Consequently, the court denied the petition in part, granted it in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Lopez-Quinteros v. Garland" on Justia Law

Chrisma Felin Mondzali Bopaka, a citizen of the Republic of the Congo, entered the United States without valid entry documents on August 23, 2018. He sought asylum, withholding of removal (WOR), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming persecution based on his political opinion and family membership. Bopaka alleged that his family was targeted due to his father's opposition to the government, and he feared harm if returned to the Congo.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Bopaka not credible due to numerous inconsistencies and omissions in his testimony, declaration, and documentary evidence. The IJ denied his applications for asylum, WOR, and CAT protection, concluding that Bopaka failed to meet his burden of proof. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, finding no error in the adverse credibility determination and insufficient corroborating evidence. The BIA also denied Bopaka's motions to remand and reopen, citing a lack of new, material evidence that could change the outcome.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA's decision. The court found substantial evidence supporting the IJ's and BIA's adverse credibility determination, noting significant inconsistencies and omissions in Bopaka's accounts. The court also agreed with the BIA's assessment that the new evidence presented in the motions to remand and reopen was insufficient to alter the previous findings. Consequently, the petitions for review were denied. View "Mondzali Bopaka v. Garland" on Justia Law