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

The First Circuit granted the petition filed by Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC for rehearing as to remedy in this case where the First Circuit vacated the grant of an air permit by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for a proposed natural gas compression station and remanded the case to that agency, holding that the remedy granted is remand without vacatur.On June 3, 2020, the First Circuit issued an opinion vacating the air permit for the proposed compressor station to be built as part of Algonquin's Atlantic Bridge Project, holding that the DEP did not follow its own established procedures for assessing whether an electric motor was the Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The Court's remedy was to vacate the air permit and remand to the DEP to redo the BACT. Given new developments that will materially the "balance of equities and public interest considerations," the First Circuit altered its remedy and revised its opinion to reflect that the remedy granted is remand without vacatur. View "Town of Weymouth v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence that he received for his conviction for possession of a machine gun, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.After the district court concluded that Defendant was competent Defendant pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 922(o) and 924(a)(2). After a sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a ninety-six-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) even assuming that Defendant failed to preserve his procedural challenges, there was no clear error in the district court's fact-finding; and (2) under the totality of the circumstances, the district court's chosen sentence was not outside the "universe of reasonable sentences." View "United States v. Lopez-Delgado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's Securities Act claims and finding that Plaintiff did not have standing to bring his Securities Exchange Act claims, holding that Plaintiff failed to allege a violation of the Securities Act and failed to state an Exchange Act claim.On behalf of proposed classes of investors, Plaintiff alleged that ReWalk Robotics, Ltd. violated both the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act by omitting details and misrepresenting its dealings with the Federal Drug Administration in its initial public offering Registration Statement and in subsequent disclosures. The district court concluded that Plaintiff failed to allege a violation of the Securities Act and that he lacked standing to challenge ReWalk's alleged failures to make certain disclosures after his purchases of ReWalk securities. The district court further denied Plaintiff's motion to add Joanne Geller as a party. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff's claims. View "Yan v. ReWalk Robotics Ltd." on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied Petitioner's motion to reconsider his motion to reopen removal proceedings, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion.Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was charged with being removable from the United States. The Immigration Judge (IJ) sustained the charge of removability and denied Petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) this Court's precedent forecloses the argument that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to issue the order of removal; (2) the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's motion to reconsider its denial of Petitioner's motion to reopen; and (3) the BIA did not err in finding that Petitioner failed to make the requisite prima facie case. View "Franjul-Soto v. Barr" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the district court's judgment ordering Council 93, a regional division of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), to reconstitute its executive board "within one year so that there may be proper proportional representation for its constituent locals and members," holding that the district court erred.This case arose out of a dispute between Council 93 and one of its local divisions, Local 402, over the allocation of seats on Council 93's governing executive board. Plaintiffs, members of Local 402, brought this action alleging that the allocation of seats on the executive board violated their right to an equal vote under Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure act of 1959 (LMRDA) and the AFSCME constitution. The district court agreed and ordered Council 93 to reconstitute its executive board. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) any remedy for a violation of the equal rights provision of Title I must be implemented by the Secretary of Labor under the remedial provisions of Title IV of the LMRDA; and (2) Plaintiffs failed to show that the union constitution supported their claims. View "Conille v. Council 93" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ordering Petitioner's removal, holding that Petitioner's state drug conviction was an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43); 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, pled guilty to drug possession with the intent to distribute, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, 32A(a). The Department of Homeland Security sought to remove him because his drug conviction constituted an aggravated felony under the INA. An immigration judge ruled that Petitioner was removable. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that because the mens rea to convict an accomplice under section 32A(a) is no broader than under the Controlled Substances Act, Petitioner's state drug conviction amounted to illicit trafficking in a controlled substance and thus an aggravated felony under the INA. View "Soto-Vittini v. Barr" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's claim that Defendant failed properly to accommodate his disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 1210 et seq., and the Maine Humans Rights Act (MHRA), Me. Rev. Stat. 5, 4551 et seq., holding that the district court committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in instructing the jury that to succeed on a claim that an employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation, a plaintiff must prove that he needed an accommodation to perform the essential functions of his job. The First Circuit agreed, holding (1) by instructing the jury that an employee must demonstrate that he needed an accommodation to perform the essential functions of his job, the district court wrongly limited Plaintiff's potential liability; and (2) the error was prejudicial. View "Bell v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC" on Justia Law

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