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

In these consolidated appeals the First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed following his conviction on the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm and Defendant's sentence imposed following the revocation of a supervised release term imposed in connection with a prior, unrelated conviction, holding that Defendant's claims of error were unavailing.The district court imposed a sixty-six term of immurement for the felon-in-possession charge and a twenty-four-month sentence with respect to the supervised release violation. The First Circuit affirmed the sentences, holding (1) the sentence imposed on the felon-in-possession conviction survived Defendant's challenges; and (2) the district court acted within its discretion in imposing the sentence in connection with the revocation of Defendant's supervised release term. View "United States v. Santa-Soler" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the sentence was reasonable.After Defendant pleaded guilty, the district court sentenced Defendant to seventy-two months of incarceration. On appeal, Defendant challenged his sentence, arguing that the district court miscalculated his base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) it was in the district court's discretion to impose a sentence outside of the Guidelines range, and any alleged error in calculating Defendant's base offense level was harmless; and (2) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Ouellette" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute drugs and one count of possessing a firearm as an alien unlawfully present in the United States, holding that Defendant failed to establish a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty had he been advised as required by Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019).Defendant pled guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement and was sentenced to 144 months' imprisonment on the drug count and 120 months' imprisonment on the firearm count, to be served concurrently. One month after Defendant's sentencing, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rehaif. Before the First Circuit, Defendant asked that his conviction on the firearm count be vacated because he did not plead guilty to knowing the facts that made him a person prohibited from possessing a firearm, as Rehaif requires. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish that his substantial rights were affected by the district court's failure to anticipate Rehaif; and (2) the district court did not err in imposing a livelihood enhancement that Defendant received at sentencing. View "United States v. Patrone" on Justia Law

In this consolidated appeal brought by Appellant to contest the sentences he received in two separate cases, the First Circuit affirmed the sentences, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.In the first case, Appellant pled guilty to attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 168 months' imprisonment. In this second case, Appellant was sentenced to eighteen months for violating supervised release terms that were imposed for an earlier conviction for conspiracy to attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. The First Circuit affirmed both sentences, holding that the 168-month sentence was not unreasonably high and that the district court's sentencing rationale in the second case was not flawed. View "United States v. Quiles-Lopez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment against Plaintiff, acting as the personal representative of the estate of Ambrosia Fagre (Amber), on claims related to Amber's death, holding that the district court did not err when it granted Trooper Jeffrey Parks's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim.Plaintiff's complaint alleged use of excessive force against Amber in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments under section 1983 and use of excessive force against Amber in violation of Me. Const. art. I, 5 under the Maine Civil Rights Act, failure to protect Amber in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and negligence and wrongful death under Maine state law. The district court granted Trooper Parks's motion for summary judgment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) summary judgment on Plaintiff's section 1983 claim was warranted, and Trooper Parks was also entitled to qualified immunity; and (2) the district court did not err by granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's state law claims because Trooper Parks was entitled to immunity under the Maine Tort Claims Act, Me. Stat. Tit. 14, 8111(1). View "Fagre v. Parks" on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance, holding that the arguments on appeal brought by Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) were unavailing.An accident that occurred in Florida damaged a Toyota Highlander insured by Ameriprise and a Lamborghini insured by GEICO and injured the driver of the Highlander. Ameriprise rescinded coverage, alleging that its insureds breached their obligations under the policy. Ameriprise brought this suit seeking declaratory relief in federal district court to approve the company's rescission and to confirm that Ameriprise had satisfied its compulsory coverage requirements under Massachusetts law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ameriprise. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding that Ameriprise could rescind the insureds' coverage as a matter of law because the insureds' misrepresentation of certain information breached the insureds' duty to inform Ameriprise about about dates to the Highlander's principal place of garaging and customary drivers; and (2) Ameriprise was not estopped from rescinding the insureds' coverage, and GEICO's waiver arguments failed as a matter of law. View "IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co. v. Government Employees Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession of child pornography and sentence of ninety-six months' imprisonment followed by lifetime supervised release, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal were without merit.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress statements made to investigating officers at his home and the evidence derived from the consensual seizure of his computer; (2) police officers did not unconstitutionally intrude onto the curtilage of Defendant's home; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's renewed motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "United States v. Mumme" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment against Matthew White and for Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HP), White's former employer, on White's claims based on Maine employment law, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.The district court held that controlling Maine Law Court decisions meant White's claims for accrued vacation pay and bonus pay were without merit and that White's remaining claims for equitable relief were unavailing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) under Maine, law, White had no right to be paid for unused vacation time except as provided for in his employment agreement; (2) White's bonus compensation claims were meritless; (3) the district court was within its discretion to permit HP to produce an additional document before summary judgment; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in commenting about the parties' statements of material facts. View "White v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated and remanded the ruling of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying Petitioner's claims for asylum and withholding of removal, holding that substantial evidence did not support the BIA's finding that Petitioner lacked a reasonable basis for his fear of being harmed on account of his membership in a particular social group.Petitioner, an Iraqi citizen, sought relief from removal on the grounds of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner asserted that he feared he would be subjected to harm in Iraq at the hands of members of Iraq's military or civilian insurgents in Iraq on account of his work as a paid contractor for the United States Army during the war in Iraq. The BIA denied all claims. The First Circuit vacated the BIA's decision in part, holding (1) the record evidence failed to support the BIA's affirmance of the immigration judge's finding that Petitioner did not sufficiently show that he had an objectively reasonable basis for fearing that he would face harm in Iraq; and (2) the BIA properly denied Petitioner's claim for relief under the CAT. View "Al Amiri v. Rosen" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Mother's petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for return of her son (Child) to Venezuela from the United States, holding that the district court properly exercised its discretion in refusing Mother's petition.Mother sought Child's return to Venezuela, alleging that Father abducted Child in contravention of The Hague Convention and a Venezuelan child custody order. The district court concluded that Father admitted to retaining Child in contravention of the Hague Convention but that Father had established that Child was a mature child such that the court should consider Child's stated desire to remain with Father in the United States. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in rejecting Mother's claim that Father unduly influenced Child and in determining that Child was of the age and maturity to state his viewpoint that he should remain in the United States and not return to Venezuela. View "Avendano v. Balza" on Justia Law