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

In this case where Plaintiff's negligence case collapsed halfway through trial due to the exclusion of his only expert witness pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and Fed. R. Evid. 702 the First Circuit reversed the rulings of the district court under Rule 26 and Rule 702, vacated the entry of judgment against Plaintiff, and remanded this matter for further proceedings, holding that the district court erred.Plaintiff was hit by a car while walking in a construction-affected area near Old San Juan, Puerto Rico. Plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against several entities. Plaintiff then retained an expert witness to opine on the standard of care owed to pedestrians in construction-affected areas and to explain how Defendants' negligence caused his accident. After a twelve-day Daubert hearing, the trial court excluded Plaintiff's sole expert witness. The district court subsequently entered judgment as a matter of law for Defendants. The First Circuit vacated the lawsuit's dismissal, holding (1) under Rule 26, preclusion was an overly harsh sanction for Plaintiff's discovery violations; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in excluding the expert testimony under Rule 702. View "Lawes v. CSA Architects & Engineers LLP" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentence for robbing an individual of a United States passport, brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's request for substitution of counsel; (2) Defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2112 for robbery properly served as the predicate "crime of violence" for Defendant's sentence for brandishing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A); and (3) under a plain error standard, Defendant did not establish a prima facie nonfrivolous double jeopardy claim. View "United States v. Almonte-Nunez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court granting Defendants' motions to suppress all evidence obtained directly by a pole camera, holding that the doctrine of stare decisis controlled this case and required reversal of the district court.At issue was whether the Supreme Court's opinion in Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018), a cell phone location automatic tracking technology case, provided a basis for departing from otherwise binding First Circuit precedent in United States v. Bucci, 582 F.3d 108 (1st Cir. 2009) and Supreme Court precedent on which Bucci was based. The First Circuit held that, by departing from that precedent in granting Defendants' motions to suppress, the district court violated the vertical rule of stare decisis. The Court thus remanded with instruction to deny the motions to suppress. View "United States v. Moore-Bush" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of 108 months' imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute cocaine after the district court applied a career-offender enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, holding that the district court properly applied the career-offender enhancement.Under the Sentencing Guidelines, the career-offender enhancement applies where a defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of a "controlled substance offense." See U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(a). The commentary to section 4B1.2 provides that such offenses include conspiracies and other inchoate crimes. The district court overruled Defendant's objection to the career-offender designation, concluding that Defendant's age, conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and predicate offenses of two prior state drug-trafficking offenses triggered the career-offender enhancement. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that because this Court has previously held the commentary to section 4B1.2 authoritative in defining a "controlled substance offense," there was no clear or obvious error in Defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Appellant's claims in three putative class action lawsuits against Defendants - Nestle USA, Inc., Mars, Inc., and The Hersey Company - holding that Appellant did not plausibly state a claim for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A and that Appellant's unjust enrichment claim was foreclosed by the availability of a remedy at law.Appellant alleged that Defendant's failure to disclose on the packaging of their chocolate products that upstream labor abuses existing in their cocoa supply chains violated Chapter 93A and that Defendants had been unjustly enriched by this packaging omission. The district court dismissed the claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Appellant did not plausibly state a Chapter 93A unfairness claim; and (2) Appellant's unjust enrichment claims must be dismissed because an adequate remedy at law was available to her through Chapter 93A. View "Tomasella v. Nestle USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for conspiring to deal in firearms without a license and dealing in firearms without a license on a theory of aiding and abetting, holding that Defendant's challenges to his sentence were unavailing.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court committed several errors that inflated the calculation of his guideline sentencing range. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant was a "prohibited person" at the time of the offense; (2) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the offenses of conviction involved at least eight firearms; (3) the district court did not err in applying the exportation enhancement, the enhancement for engaging in firearms trafficking, and the role-in-the-offense enhancement; and (4) Defendant waived his claim that the district court erred in calculating his criminal history score. View "United States v. Ilarraza" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing Petitioner's appeal of the immigration judge's (IJ) claims for relief and ordering her removed to El Salvador, holding that the IJ denied Petitioner her statutory right to be represented by the counsel of her choice.Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without being admitted or paroled. Over the course of her removal proceedings, Petitioner retained an attorney, lost that attorney, and attempted to find another to assist her in presenting the merits of her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ denied relief. Petitioner appealed and filed a motion to reopen and remand. The BIA dismissed the appeal, denied Petitioner's motion, and ordered her removed to El Salvador. The First Circuit vacated the BIA's order and remanded the matter, holding that the IJ failing to meaningfully effectuate Petitioner's statutory right to counsel, and the assistance of a lawyer likely would have affected the outcome of Petitioner's removal proceedings. View "Hernandez Lara v. Barr" on Justia Law

In this qui tam action, the First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying the request of Concilio De Salud Integral De Loiza, Inc. (CSILO), on the eve of trial, to amend the pretrial order to include a discussion of damages CSILO claimed it was due under the False Claims Act, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied CSILO's request to amend the pretrial order.CSILO, a non-profit organization in Puerto Rico, brought this action under the FCA against JC Remodeling, Inc. (JCR). Three years into litigation and after the close of discovery, CSILO moved the court for leave to amend the pretrial order to include a discussion of damages. The district court denied the request. After a trial, the jury found that JCR had violated the False Claims Act and entered judgment against JCR and imposed on it a $5,500 civil penalty. CSILO appealed, challenging the denial of its request to amend the pretrial order. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it decided that CSILO's request to amend the pretrial order would not have cause it "manifest injustice" and would have instead caused prejudice and hardship to JCR. View "Concilio De Salud Integral De Loiza, Inc. v. JC Remodeling, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to, and possessing the firearm in furtherance of, a drug trafficking crime (Count Three), holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal were unavailing.In determining Defendant's guilt on Count Three, the jury was asked one special interrogatory and determined that the government had not proven that the firearm was discharged. In challenging his conviction on Count Three, Defendant argued that the indictment was constructively amended in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause and that the jury's verdict on Count Three and the special interrogatory answer were irreconcilably inconsistent. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no constructive amendment of the indictment; and (2) the jury verdict on Count Three and the special interrogatory answer were not inconsistent. View "United States v. McBride" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentence for possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes and of possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine base, holding that Defendant was not entitled to reversal on any of his claims.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence of Defendant's guilt was sufficient to support the jury's verdict; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the statements he provided to law enforcement or the evidence seized from the residence; (3) the district court did not clearly err in imposing the sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice because Defendant perjured himself; and (4) the district court did not err in rejecting Defendant's request for a reduction in his offense level based on his claimed minimal participation in the offenses. View "United States v. Mendoza-Maisonet" on Justia Law