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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for his role as a leader and organizer of a major drug-trafficking organization, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's pro se motions to withdraw his guilty plea and to appoint new counsel.Defendant entered into a plea agreement with the government and, pursuant to that agreement, was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. Defendant later made a statement that the district court construed as making a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and a motion to appoint new counsel. After a hearing, the court denied both motions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to appoint new counsel; and (2) did not err in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "United States v. Valdez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for judicial review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the judgment of the immigration judge (IJ) denying Petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that Petitioner's claims failed.Petitioner, an Ecuadorian national, conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The IJ determined that Petitioner had failed to substantiate any of his three claims and denied relief. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the agency's findings. View "Loja-Tene v. Barr" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of transporting child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography, holding that Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed two special conditions of supervised release.Defendant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. After a hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to 156 months in prison and imposed conditions of supervised release that included restrictions on Defendant's contact with children. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's 156-month sentence was not outside the universe of reasonable sentences; and (2) there was a sufficient relationship between Defendant's criminal conduct and the conditions limiting his contact with his son. View "United States v. Benoit" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the ruling of the district court granting Defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, holding that the district court did not err.After Defendant was found guilty the district court granted Defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, finding that the evidence was insufficient to permit a reasonable juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knowingly either agreed to participate or participated in the alleged conspiracy. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was insufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant agreed to participate or participated in the drug conspiracy. View "United States v. Guzman-Ortiz" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied the petition filed by United Nurses and Allied Professionals (the Union) for review of the decision of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) ruling that lobbying expenses are categorically not chargeable to objecting employees, holding that unions cannot require objectors to contribute toward lobbying costs.Jeanette Geary worked as a nurse at a Rhode Island hospital where the Union was the exclusive bargaining representative. Geary challenged the Union's decision to charge her for some of its 2009 lobbying expenses and to refuse her a letter verifying that its expenses were examined by an independent auditor. The Board ruled in favor of Geary. The First Circuit upheld the decision, holding (1) the Board's decision on the Union's lobbying expenses comported with Supreme Court decisions addressing the changeability of lobbying expenses by public-sector unions; and (2) the Board's determination requiring the Union to provide Geary a letter signed by an auditor verifying that the financial information disclosed to the objectors had been independently audited was reasonable. View "United Nurses & Allied Professional v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Appellant's petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing Appellant's appeal from the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying Appellant's application for asylum, withholding of removal (WOR), and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that the conclusions of the IJ and BIA were supported by substantial evidence.Appellant, a Honduran national, filed an application for asylum, WOR, and CAT relief. The IJ denied Appellant's applications and ordered that he be removed to Honduras. The BIA dismissed Appellant's petition for asylum and WOR and denied his application for protection under CAT. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the BIA and IJ's conclusion that Appellant did not show that the government of Honduras was unable or unwilling to protect him was supported by substantial evidence; and (2) Appellant did not establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Honduras. View "Gomez-Medina v. Barr" on Justia Law

In this ERISA action, the First Circuit affirmed the rulings of the district court entering judgment for Defendants on remand and refusing to award Plaintiff attorneys' fees for her success on a prior appeal, holding that there was no clear error on the part of the district court.Plaintiff spent several months at a residential mental health treatment center. Defendants covered certain costs of Plaintiff's treatment but denied coverage for a four-month period on the grounds that Plaintiff could have stepped down to a lower level of treatment during that period. Plaintiff brought suit seeking de novo review of her claim for coverage of the four-month period under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461. The district court entered summary judgment for Defendants. The First Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded so the district court could consider additional evidence. On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment for Defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) it was not clear error for the district court to conclude that, at the beginning of the four-month period, Plaintiff's continued stay at the residential facility was not medically necessary; and (2) there was no clear error in the district court's decision not to award attorney's fees. View "Doe v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court dismissing this lawsuit challenging Defendants' alleged manipulation of natural gas pipeline capacity for failure to state a claim, holding that any differences between two cases filed with regard to this issue did not warrant a different outcome.In 2017, a group of economists published a report alleging that Defendants were able to increase electricity prices in New England by buying up and refusing to release excess transmission capacity in the Algonquin pipeline. In response, a group of electricity end consumers filed suit alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair competition law. Thereafter, PNE Energy Supply LLC, a wholesale energy purchaser, filed this lawsuit also challenging Defendants' conduct in neither using nor releasing reserved pipeline capacity. The district court dismissed the electricity consumers' suit. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the antitrust claims failed on their merits because Defendants' conduct occurred pursuant to a tariff approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. At issue was whether the logic from the electricity consumers' suit also applied to this lawsuit brought by PNE. The First Circuit held that the holding in the first lawsuit controlled and affirmed the district court's dismissal of PNE's lawsuit. View "PNE Energy Supply LLC v. Eversource Energy" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and for unlawfully possessing a machine-gun but remanded for the district court to docket a sealed copy of the written statement of reasons (SOR) in order for Defendant to prepare his appeal, holding that there was no basis for withholding the SOR from Defendant.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not commit procedural error by unduly relying on conjecture to impose an upward variant sentence; (2) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable because it was within the "universe of reasonable sentences"; and (3) practice and policy required that defense counsel have access to the SOR. View "United States v. Morales-Negron" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), holding that the FTCA's discretionary-function applied in this case and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims.While delivering mail for the Postal Service, an employee for Eagle Support, Inc. driving an Eagle truck rear-ended a school bus, severely injuring two minor passengers. Plaintiffs sued the Postal Service under the FTCA, alleging negligence for failing to inspect Eagle's vehicles for safety purposes. The Postal Service filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the discretionary-function exception. The judge dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the discretionary-function exception divested the federal courts of jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' suit. View "Reyes-Colon v. United States" on Justia Law