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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the district court did not err in imposing a sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm "in connection with another felony offense."Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. The sentencing court applied a four-level enhancement for handling at least eight firearms, a four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, and a two-level enhancement for obstructing justice. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court's application of the four-level sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the finding that Defendant committed "another felony offense" and possessed a firearm "in connection with" such offense. View "United States v. Newton" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions, entered pursuant to his guilty plea, for eight counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and one count of possession of child pornography and dismissed Defendant's challenges to his sentence, holding that that the district court did not err.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) th district court did not plainly error in concluding that the factual foundation for Defendant's plea to two of his eight convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor sufficed to give it a reasoned basis to believe that Defendant actually committed the crime to which he was admitting guilt; and (2) the appeal waiver in Defendant's plea agreement barred this Court's consideration of the substance of Defendant's challenges to the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. View "United States v. Goodman" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for drug-trafficking and firearms offenses, holding that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the evidence obtained from a number of warrant-backed searches.After he was charged, Defendant filed several motions to suppress stemming from the seizures and searches of cellphones, a hotel room, a storage locker, and a Connecticut apartment. The district court denied all of the motions. Defendant subsequently entered a conditional plea to two charges. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was foreclosed from raising on appeal his claims regarding the traffic stop; (2) search warrants used to gather evidence against Defendant were supported by probable cause and otherwise valid; (3) Defendant was foreclosed from raising on appeal new arguments regarding the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider various suppression rulings; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Defendant failed to establish a fair and just reason for withdrawing his conditional guilty plea. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or remittitur, holding that the trial court properly found Defendants liable for conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's civil rights.Plaintiff suffered a head injury at the Andover, Massachusetts State Police Barracks. Plaintiff filed this action against the three officers involved in his booking, including Trooper James J. Foley, alleging several federal and state causes of action. After a trial, the jury found Foley liable on six claims, including the use of excessive force, and all three officers liable for conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's civil rights. On appeal, Defendants argued that the district court erred in denying their motions for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or remittitur. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly denied Defendants' post-verdict motions for judgment as a matter of law on each of the counts for which they were found liable; (2) did not abuse its discretion in declining to order a new trial; and (3) did not err in denying Foley's motion for remittitur. View "Sanchez v. Foley" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed Appellant's appeal from a grant of summary judgment to Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC in her suit in the District of Massachusetts against Ocwen and the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that this court lacked jurisdiction under the circumstances of this case.In her notice of appeal, Appellant sought review of only the grant of summary judgment to Ocwen on Count III of her complaint. The First Circuit issued an order to show cause stating that the orders appealed from did not appear to be final or appealable on an interlocutory basis and that the Court did not appear to have jurisdiction absent certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Thereafter, Appellant filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of her claims against GNMA, but the district court did not enter any further orders or judgments, and Appellant did not file a new notice of appeal. Appellant then filed a response to the show cause order. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Appellant filed the notice of appeal before the decision below was final and did not correct her mistake. View "Donahue v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution based on his prior conviction in a Commonwealth court for a local drug offense, holding that Defendant met his burden to make a prima facie case that he had been prosecuted twice for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws.On March 15, 2016, Defendant pleaded guilty to a violation of Article 406 of the Puerto Rico Controlled Substances Act. About sixteen months later, Defendant was named in a federal indictment charging him with five drug-related federal offenses, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.c. 846. Defendant moved to dismiss the section 846 conspiracy count on double jeopardy grounds, alleging that his prior Article 406 conviction was for the same criminal conduct that the section 846 count charged him with committing. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit reversed, holding that Defendant met his burden of presenting evidence to establish a prima facie non frivolous double jeopardy claim, and the government failed to meet its burden to rebut it. View "United States v. Reyes-Correa" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated in part the convictions and sentences that Victor Lara and Kourtney Williams (together, Defendants) each received in connection with a robbery in Maine, holding that Defendants' convictions for violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c), which makes it a crime to use a firearm "during and in relation to" a "crime of violence" could not stand.After a jury trial, Defendants were found guilty of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and of violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Defendants both received a total prison sentence of 184 months. The First Circuit held (1) conspiracy to commit Hobbs act robbery does not qualify as a "crime of violence" under section 924(c), and therefore, Defendants' convictions for violating section 924(c) must be reversed; (2) Defendants were not entitled to relief on their claims of instructional error; and (3) Defendants' remaining allegations of error were unavailing. View "United States v. Lara" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the decision of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, holding that the court erred in concluding that Plaintiff did not assert a breach of contract claim and abused its discretion when it employed the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard in dismissing the breach of contract claim instead of the summary judgment standard.Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action and asserted a secondary theory of liability related to deceit or "dolo." Defendant moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant but dismissed the breach of contract claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim to relief that was "plausible on its fact." Applying the test for deceit in the formation of the contract, the court found that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief. The First Circuit vacated the judgment in part, holding that the district court (1) erred in concluding that Plaintiff did not assert a breach of contract claim and abused its discretion when it evaluated Defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to the claim as if were a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss; and (2) did not err in granting summary judgment as to Plaintiff's fallback theory of dolo. View "Feliciano-Munoz v. Rebarber-Ocasio" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed Defendant's conviction for transporting a minor in interstate or foreign commerce or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, holding that the trial judge violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to in-person confrontation when he allowed the victim to testify by two-way close-circuit television and without making specific on the record findings.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) 2423(a)'s ban on transporting a minor to commit a sex crime applies to transportation without Puerto Rico, which is a "commonwealth" of the United States under the statute; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; (3) the judge properly instructed the jury on the elements of the Puerto Rico crimes the government alleged Defendant had intended to commit at her destination; but (4) the judge violated Defendant's right to confront the victim in person absent a compelling need for remote testimony, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "United States v. Cotto-Flores" on Justia Law

In this case involving a consent judgment and decree entered on July 30, 2020, in the midst of the pandemic, effective for the September and November 2020 elections suspending Rhode Island's requirement that a voter using a mail ballot mark the ballot in the presence of two witnesses or a notary, the First Circuit reversed in part the district court's order denying a motion to intervene filed by the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Rhode Island (jointly, Republicans) and denied the Republicans' motion to stay the judgment and consent decree pending the outcome of the appeal, holding (1) the concerns in Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 5 (20016), that would normally support a stay are largely inapplicable and even militate against a stay; and (2) as to the Republicans' status as intervenors, the district court's order denying intervention is reversed in part. View "Common Cause Rhode Island v. Rhode Island Republican Party" on Justia Law