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

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that, under the highly deferential standard prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act for federal habeas review of state criminal convictions, Appellant's claims to habeas relief failed.Appellant was convicted in a Massachusetts superior court of murder in the first degree and related crimes. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed the convictions. Appellant subsequently petitioned the District Court for the District of Massachusetts for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition but granted a certificate of appealability. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported Appellant's conviction for first-degree murder as a joint venturer, and the SJC's sufficiency determination was not unreasonable; and (2) the SJC reasonably determined that the trial court's admission into evidence of certain items did not constitute error. View "Gomes v. Silva" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the district court's order denying in part Defendants' motions to dismiss this suit brought Plaintiffs, a putative class of shippers who use the services of ocean freight carriers to import goods into Puerto Rico through the Port of San Juan, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue for a declaration that the collection of a fee from the carriers was unlawful.Plaintiffs' claims stemmed from a cargo scanning program implemented by the Puerto Rico Ports Authority (PRPA). Pursuant to that program, PRPA contracted with Rapiscan Systems, Inc. to provide the technology and services needed to scan all containerized inbound cargo. Rapsican assigned its rights and obligations to S2 Services Puerto Rico LLC (S2). PRPA charged ocean freight carriers a fee for their use of the of the scanning facilities at the maritime port. Plaintiffs sued PRPA, Rapiscan, and S2 (collectively, Defendants) alleging that, in response to the fee, the carriers were forced to be collection agents that collected fees from the shipper entities. The district court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motions to dismiss. The First Circuit remanded this case for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, holding that Plaintiffs failed to set forth allegations that were sufficient to establish their standing. View "Dantzler, Inc. v. S2 Services Puerto Rico, LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition seeking review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of her untimely motion to reopen her family's removal proceedings, holding that the BIA's denial of Petitioner's motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion.Petitioner, a native and citizen of Indonesia, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture for her herself, her husband, and her two daughters. An immigration judge denied the application, and the BIA affirmed. Six years later, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the removal proceedings. The BIA denied the motion as untimely. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the BIA's decision not to reopen the proceedings was neither arbitrary nor capricious. View "Sutarsim v. Barr" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint alleging that Defendants, his former employer along with its administrators, conspired to deprive him of his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, holding that the district court correctly dismissed the claims but erred in dismissing the Puerto Rico law claims with prejudice.In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that several adverse employment actions taken against him by his employer were done in retaliation for his whistleblowing activities. The First Circuit (1) summarily affirmed the district court's dismissal of four of Plaintiff's claims, holding that Plaintiff failed to "seriously develop" argument in their favor on appeal; (2) affirmed the district court's dismissal of the remaining claims; and (3) vacated the district court's dismissal of the Puerto Rico claims with prejudice, holding that those claims should have been dismissed without prejudice. View "Borras-Borrero v. Corporacion del Fondo del Seguro del Estado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the indictment and affirmed the sentence imposed, holding that the district court correctly denied the motion to dismiss and that the sentence was reasonable.Appellant was charged with conspiring to manufacture, distribute, and import cocaine into the United States. Appellant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the government could not prove the element of the offense that Appellant knew or intended that the cocaine would be sent to the United States. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. Appellant entered into a conditional plea agreement and then appealed. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the district court's denial of Appellant's motion to dismiss, holding that Appellant's challenge to the validity of the indictment failed; and (2) affirmed Defendant's below-guideline sentence, holding that the sentence was reasonable. View "United States v. Alexander" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the imposition of a role-in-the-offense enhancement in connection with Defendant's conviction for racketeering conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), holding that there was no error in Defendant's sentence.Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to conduct enterprise affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. A PSI report applied a three-level role-in-the-offense enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b). The probationer arrived at the enhancement by analyzing Defendant's role in each of the predicate racketeering acts separately and concluded that the enhancement applied only to a murder plot. The government argued that the role enhancement should apply across the board based on Defendant's managerial role in the overall conspiracy. The district court effectively adopted the government's interpretation of the relevant guideline and sentenced Defendant to the statutory maximum sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the role-in-the-offense enhancement is dependent upon the defendant's role in the criminal enterprise as a whole instead of his role in the discrete acts of racketeering activity that underpin the RICO conviction; and (2) the district court's factual finding that Defendant played a managerial or supervisory role in the RICO conspiracy was not plainly erroneous. View "United States v. Lopez" on Justia Law

In these cases against four defendants - Manuel De Jesus Rosario-Perez (Rosario), Jorge Gomez-Gonzalez (Gomez), Bryant Setiawan-Ramos (Setiawan), and Santiago Hernandez-Rosa (Hernandez) - the First Circuit affirmed the various drug and weapons charges as to Rosario, Gomez, and Hernandez but vacated Setiawan's convictions and remanded his case for a new trial, holding that Setiawan's convictions must be set aside on a cumulative error theory.Each defendant was indicted for conspiracy to distribute drugs within 1,000 feet of a school and possession with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. The indictment also charged everyone but Rosario with carrying and using firearms in relation to drug trafficking. Each defendant was convicted of one or more counts. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) most of Defendants' claims were without merit; but (2) the district court's decision to admit evidence that Setiawan killed "Teton," a drug seller, while excluding evidence that a witness named "Cascote" killed Teton was improper, and the cumulative effect of the decision warranted a new trial. View "United States v. Rosario-Perez" on Justia Law

In this class action lawsuit stemming from the 2011 nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FNPP) in Japan, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissing Plaintiffs' suit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that an adequate alternative forum was available in Japan.Plaintiffs were individuals and business entities who suffered property damage and/or economic harm as a result of the FNPP disaster. Plaintiffs filed suit against General Electric Company (GE) alleging that GE negligently designed the FNPP's nuclear reactors and safety mechanisms, both of which were implicated in the explosions. Plaintiffs alleged that venue was proper in the District of Massachusetts because GE maintained its corporate headquarters and principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. The district court dismissed the suit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, determining that an adequate alternative forum was available to Plaintiffs in Japan and that dismissal was in the private and public interest. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Japan satisfied the forum availability requirement despite the jurisdictional idiosyncrasies presented in this case. View "Imamura v. General Electric Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the district court's order sanctioning Attorney for failing to appear at a status conference, holding that where Attorney was fined without first being given a chance to show cause or explain her failure to appear, the court's order was an abuse of discretion.After Attorney failed to appear at a status conference the district court opened the conference by imposing a monetary sanction on Attorney for her failure to appear. Attorney filed two motions for reconsideration asking the court to excuse her non-appearance due to "mistake" in scheduling. The district court denied the motions for reconsideration. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the sanctions were an abuse of discretion because (1) the district judge in this case does not uniformly sanction all counsel who fail to appear; (2) it cannot be determined which non-appearing attorneys are sanctions and which ones are not; and (3) the district court fined Attorney without first giving her a chance to show cause or explain her failure to appear. View "In re Pimentel-Soto" on Justia Law

The First Circuit held that the requirements for establishing membership in a particular social group in support of a request for asylum or withholding of removal do not categorically preclude applicants from successfully relying on any group defined in material part as women "unable to leave" a domestic relationship.Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner alleged that her former domestic partner and the father of her son abused her in the past, will abuse her in the future, and will remain unfettered by Dominican law enforcement authorities. The immigration judge ruled against Petitioner in part on claimed inadequacy of the tendered social groups. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the BIA's holding that Petitioner's claim necessarily failed because the groups to which she claimed to belong were necessarily deficient was arbitrary and unexamined. View "De Pena-Paniagua v. Barr" on Justia Law