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

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying the motions to suppress filed by Defendants Cuwan Merritt and Michael Artis, the district court's ruling admitting co-conspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) and 403 and United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1977), and Defendants' convictions of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, holding that Defendants were not entitled to relief.In denying Defendants' motions to suppress drugs found on each Defendant the trial court found that police had probable cause to stop an automobile in which Defendants were known to be traveling with two confidential informants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendants failed to show that the police lacked probable cause to arrest them before a vehicle stop; and (2) the district court properly admitted the out-of-court statements made by a co-conspirator. View "United States v. Merritt" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress his booking fingerprints as the fruit of what he argued was an unlawful arrest, holding that because the fingerprints were obtained for routine booking purposes there was no basis in the record for suppression of the fingerprint evidence.During a law enforcement scheme targeting a stolen identity refund fraud scheme, Defendant was administratively arrested for unlawful presence in the United States. Defendant was fingerprinted during a routine booking and later charged with multiple counts related to his involvement in the scheme. Defendant moved to suppress his booking fingerprints. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant was arrested without probable cause but that the fingerprint evidence was admissible under the doctrine of inevitable discovery. The First Circuit affirmed, albeit on different grounds, holding that where the fingerprints were not obtained for any purpose other than routine booking the evidence could not be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. View "United States v. Cruz-Mercedes" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal involving the judgment of the district court sustaining Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico's newly enacted bar on "reprogramming" the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the reprogramming suspension provision challenges, holding that the district court correctly found that the reprogramming provisions in the 2019-2020 fiscal plan and budget were entirely valid as consistent with the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Security Act (PROMESA).Under PROMESA the Board developed and certified a fiscal plan and budget for the Commonwealth for the fiscal year 2019-2020. The Governor and Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority filed a complaint seeking a declaration striking challenged provisions, including the provision barring reprogramming, i.e., spending during the 2019-2020 fiscal year money that had been authorized but not actually spent in a prior fiscal year. The district court sustained the bar on reprogramming. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the Board possessed the authority to unilaterally impose the reprogramming bar. View "Vazquez-Garced v. Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of four counts of filing false tax returns and one count of attempting to obstruct the internal-revenue laws and the sentence imposed in connection with the conviction, holding that there was no error or plain error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the trial judge did not commit plain error by admitting for impeachment purposes a false-statement conviction Defendant incurred in 2006; (2) Defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that any error in the jury instructions affected his substantial rights; and (3) the trial judge did not err by imposing a $286,433 restitution amount recommended by the probation officer in her pre-sentence report. View "United States v. Takesian" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Father's petition brought under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act seeking return of his child from the United States to Chile on the basis that Mother had wrongfully retained the child in violation of his custody rights, holding that the district court did not err.In denying Father's petition the trial judge ruled, among other things, that clear and convincing evidence established that the child faced a grave risk of harm if sent back to Chile. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that where the district judge was in a unique position to gauge the child's credibility, none of Father's arguments left this Court with a firm conviction that the district judge made a mistake on the grave-risk issue. View "Diaz-Alarcon v. Flandez-Marcel" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed in connection with Defendant's conviction of conspiring to possess and distribute heroin and fentanyl, holding that the district court did not err in adopting the government's estimate of the heroin attributable to Defendant.The district court adopted the district court's estimate and found Defendant responsible for more than one kilogram of heroin. The district court then fixed the guideline sentencing range as fifty-seven to seventy-one months of imprisonment and imposed a sentence of sixty-six months. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court's drug quantity determination. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in adopting the government's estate where that estimate, if anything, understated Defendant's involvement. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the magistrate judge concluding that Defendant, a state drug lab supervisor, was not entitled to qualified immunity from a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and vacated the denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss an intentional infliction of emotional distress state law claim, holding that Defendant was entitled to qualified immunity from the section 1983 claim.Plaintiff's conviction was vacated after the discovery of the drug abuse of Sonja Farak, a chemist at the Amherst Drug Lab on the campus of the University of Massachusetts. Plaintiff brought this complaint alleged that Defendant's inadequate supervision Farak constituted deliberate indifference to Defendant's constitutional rights. Defendant also claimed intentional infliction of emotional distress. The magistrate judge denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the section 1983 claim and held that Defendant's behavior showing a disregard for "repeated red flags" was enough to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. The First Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) Defendant was entitled to qualified immunity from the section 1983 claim; and (2) because the sole basis for federal jurisdiction was dismissed the judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress state law claim is remanded to state court. View "Penate v. Hanchett" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied the petition filed by Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, seeking review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying as untimely Petitioner's motion to reopen her earlier removal proceedings, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's motion.Petitioner sought to reopen her earlier removal proceedings alleging that changed country conditions in China regarding religious persecution would impact her given her recent conversion to Christianity. The BIA denied the motion to reopen, finding that it was time-barred and that the evidence did not support an exception to the time limits. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings was time-barred. View "Lin v. Barr" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the district court's sentence imposed in connection with Defendant's conviction for sexual exploitation of a child, access with intent to view child pornography, and possession of child pornography, holding that the district court erred in applying the 2016 Guidelines Sentencing Manual to two ungrouped, later-committed offenses in calculating the offense level for an offense committed in 2001.Defendant pleaded guilty to all offenses under the same indictment, and the district court sentenced Defendant to a 196-month term of incarceration. The 2016 version of the manual, as compared to the version in effect in 2001, resulted in a high total offense level. Further, the court gave no explanation for why it chose the sentence or for why it would have done so even if it knew it was upwardly variant. The First Circuit remanded the case for resentencing, holding (1) application of the subsequent manual to the prior, ungrouped offense violated the Ex Post Facto Clause; and (2) the district court plainly erred in providing no justification for the resulting upward variance. View "United States v. Mantha" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion and one count of aiding and abetting the same, holding that there was ample and sufficient evidence to support the verdict on both crimes.Defendant and other ostensible members of an organized crime organization tried to extort money from the owner of an interstate towing company through a variety of means. A jury convicted Defendant of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by threats of violence and interference with commerce by threats or violence and aiding and abetting the same. The district court sentenced Defendant to a twenty-month term of imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the evidence was more than sufficient to support the verdict on both crimes. View "United States v. Valentini" on Justia Law