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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for two counts of production of child pornography and two counts of transportation of a minor with the intent to engage in criminal activity, holding that the sentence was substantively reasonable.Defendant pleaded guilty, and his plea agreement tentatively calculated a prison term of 210 to 262 months. The district court made its own calculations, resulting in a proposed sentence of between 324 and 405 months. The court then granted Defendant a downward variance and sentenced him to a prison term of 300 months. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion by impermissibly balancing the sentencing pros and cons. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Jurado-Nazario" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the federal district court allowing Rhode Island's motion to return to state court its state court complaint against several oil and gas companies for damage caused by fossil fuels, holding that the allegations in Rhode Island's complaint did not give rise to federal-officer jurisdiction.In 2018, faced with rising sea levels and other property damage from extreme weather events caused by climate change, Rhode Island sued, in state court, several oil and gas companies for damage caused by fossil fuels while those companies misled the public about their products' true risks. The oil companies removed the case to federal district court. Rhode Island moved for the case to be remanded to state court. The district court granted the motion and ordered the case remanded to state court. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that there was no subject matter jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute. View "State of Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting judgment to the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Education in this federal constitutional challenge to the requirement of Maine's tuition assistance program that a private school must be "a nonsectarian school in accordance with the First Amendment" to qualify as "approved" to receive tuition assistance payments, holding that the program's condition violated neither the Free Exercise Clause nor the Establishment Clause.To ensure that Maine's school administrative units (SAUs) make the benefits of a free public education available Maine provides by statute that SAUs that do not operate a public secondary school of their own may either contract with a secondary school for school privileges or pay the tuition at the public school or an approved private school at which the student from their SAU is accepted. Plaintiffs brought this suit against the Commissioner, arguing that the program's requirement that a private school be a nonsectarian school to receive tuition assistance payments infringed various of their federal constitutional rights. The district court granted judgment to the Commissioner. Having twice before rejected similar federal constitutional challenges to the "nonsectarian" requirement and even accounting for fresh United States Supreme Court precedent the First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' constitutional challenges failed. View "Carson v. Makin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of this complaint alleging that Puerto Rico's series of laws that affect the relationship between public employees in the Commonwealth and their employers impermissibly interfere with their collective bargaining rights, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.To address Puerto Rico's fiscal criss, the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly passed the four laws challenged in this case affecting the rights and benefits of public sector workers. Two Puerto Rico unions brought this action alleging that these measures violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution and the Collective Bargaining Clause of the Puerto Rico Constitution. The district court dismissed the complaint. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. View "Hermandad de Empleados v. Financial Oversight & Management Board" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of forty-two months' imprisonment for illegal possession of a machine gun, holding that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erroneously applied a four-level enhancement to his total offense level for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony of drug possession pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6). Specifically, Defendant argued that possession of a firearm in connection with mere drug possession for personal use was insufficient to apply the enhancement. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was clearly in possession of the firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking under this Court's case law, and therefore, the evidence was sufficient to justify an enhanced sentence for that reason; and (2) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Reyes-Torres" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of violating federal laws by conspiring to receive, and of receiving, kickbacks from the pharmaceutical company Insys in exchange for prescribing its synthetic opioid, Subsys, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's arguments on appeal.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the government introduced sufficient evidence to prove that Defendant participated in a conspiracy to receive kickbacks or to prove that he accepted those kickbacks in exchange for prescribing Subsys; (2) Defendant's conduct fell outside the Anti-Kickback Statute's safe harbor provision; and (3) the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury about that same safe harbor provision. View "United States v. Clough" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for firearm-related convictions, holding that the district court properly applied two sentencing enhancements in this case.Defendant pleaded guilty to an information charging two federal firearms counts. The presentence investigation report applied a number of enhancements to determine an adjusted offense level, only two of which were relevant to this appeal. One of the enhancements resulted in a four-level increase in the adjusted offense level for trafficking firearms. The other enhancement was an "other-felony-offense" enhancement, which was recommended on the basis that Defendant used or possessed the firearms in connection with another felony offense and also resulted in a four-level increase in the adjusted offense level. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no prohibition in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines proscribing simultaneous application of the trafficking and other-felony-offense enhancements. View "United States v. Stinson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to an upwardly variant sixty-month term of immurement for illegal possession of a machine gun, holding that Defendant's sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the sentencing court specifically articulated why it believed that Defendant's situation was sufficiently distinctive to warrant a variance; (2) Defendant was not prejudiced when the prosecutor made a gratuitous conjecture without basis in the record; and (3) the relatively modest variance as well within the ambit of the court's discretion. View "United States v. Bruno-Campos" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court denying Petitioner's second 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition, holding that the district court did not err.Petitioner was convicted of using a firearm during a crime of violence (specifically, pharmacy robbery), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). At sentencing, the district court determined that Petitioner qualified for a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because his criminal record included at least three violent felonies, including New Hampshire state court convictions for armed robbery and robbery. After the First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions, the law regarding what qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA and what qualifies as a crime of violence for section 924(c) changed. In light of these changes, Petitioner filed a section 2255 motion arguing that his sentence was improperly enhanced under the ACCA. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner's robbery and armed robbery convictions are ACCA predicate crimes; and (2) pharmacy robbery is a crime of violence under the section 924(c) elements clause. View "Boulanger v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentence for three counts related to distribution of heroin and one count of discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evidence at trial and erroneously concluded that he was eligible for a two-level role enhancement under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly found that law enforcement officers had sufficient probable cause to substantiate a search warrant for Defendant's apartment before a protective sweep began, and Defendant did not establish that the government failed to meet the requirements for applying the inevitable discovery doctrine; and (2) the district court did not clearly err in applying the two-level role enhancement. View "United States v. Soto-Peguero" on Justia Law