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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendants' convictions of violating the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (VICAR) statute, a statute banning the use or carry of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and other gang-related crimes, holding that Defendants were not entitled to reversal of their convictions.Defendants, "La ONU" gangbangers, were convicted of helping murder a "La Rompe ONU" gangbanger and other crimes. Defendants later filed a motion for a new trial, claiming newly-discovered evidence on allegations that the gangbanger died at the hands of La Rompe, not La ONU. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the trial judge applied the correct legal standard and that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial. View "United States v. Laureano-Salgado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendants' convictions of conspiring to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; aiding and abetting violent crimes in aid of racketeering, namely murder or attempted murder under Puerto Rico law; conspiring to engage in drug trafficking; and other offenses, holding that Defendant's challenges to their convictions were unavailing.The three defendants in this case were members of a vicious Puerto Rican gang called La ONU. Defendants appealed their convictions, bringing a variety of claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying a motion to suppress a cache of guns and drugs seized during a warrantless search of a house; (2) the judge did not err in finding that no courtroom closure occurred during the proceedings; (3) the judge did not err in denying Defendants' motion for a mistrial; and (4) the remainder of Defendants' arguments on appeal did not entitle them to reversal of their convictions. View "United States v. Lanza-Vazquez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of transportation of a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and travel with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct and sentencing him to life imprisonment, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion because the evidence was sufficient to support the two convictions; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in making its evidentiary rulings challenged by Defendant; and (3) the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant. View "United States v. Gaudet" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the decision of the district court entering summary judgment in favor of the Steward Holy Family Hospital and vacating an award entered by an arbitrator regarding a dispute between the Hospital and the union of one of the Hospital's former nurses, Maureen Bean, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority under the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA).After Hospital terminated Bean her union (Union) initiated grievance procedures, arguing that there was not just cause for her termination under the CBA. The arbitrator established that Bean had engaged in misconduct providing just cause for discipline but nevertheless concluded that Bean's termination was unwarranted and ordered her reinstatement. The Hospital bought this action to vacate the award. The district court concluded that the arbitrator exceeded his authority under the CBA. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his authority in ordering a lesser form of discipline in accordance with the CBA and the Hospital's own disciplinary policies. View "Steward Holy Family Hospital, Inc. v. Massachusetts Nurses Ass'n" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the arbitrator's decision in favor of RMS Lifeline, Inc. in this dispute between RMS and Dialysis Access Center (DAC) and the district court's refusal to vacate that decision, holding that the district court was correct in denying DAC's challenge and confirming the award.In this multi-year arbitration-fueled litigation the arbitrator ultimately entered a decision for RMS, awarding it almost $2 million. The district court confirmed the award and dismissed DAC's complaint to vacate and/or modify the arbitration award. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that vacatur of the arbitration award was not warranted and that the district court properly confirmed the award. View "Dialysis Access Center, LLC v. RMS Lifeline, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant in connection to her plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit access-device fraud, holding that the district court did not err in imposing the sentence that it did.Based on the "profound" disparity between the "loss" as calculated by Defendant's pre-sentence report and the actual "loss" attributed to Defendant's offense based on victim impact statements submitted by various financial institutions, as well as various mitigating factors, the district court exercised its discretion to impose a variant sentence of four months' imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in its calculation of the "loss" attributable to her offense due to what she argued was an incorrect reading of section 2B1.1(b)(1) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly interpreted section 2B1.1(b)(1) in imposing the sentence. View "United States v. Rueda" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's partial denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from Defendant's home on the day of his arrest on drug and money laundering charges, holding that the district court properly determined that certain items were lawfully seized but that it could not be determined on the record that other items were lawfully seized.The district court concluded that federal law enforcement agents validly relied on exceptions to the warrant requirement when they searched Defendant's home, a cargo van inside Defendant's garage, and a minivan parked in Defendant's driveway. The First Circuit held (1) the district court correctly determined that certain items were lawfully seized from the first floor; (2) it could not be determined whether items on the second floor and in the cargo van were lawfully seized, and therefore, remand was required for further findings concerning the duration and scope of the purported protective sweep; (3) remand was required for reconsideration of the issue of application of the automobile exception to the cargo van based on the court's conclusions regarding the sweep; and (4) as to items seized from the minivan, remand was necessary for a determination whether the minivan was within the curtilage of Defendant's home. View "United States v. Hernandez-Mieses" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence in connection with Defendant's guilty plea to reentering the United States illegally as a removed alien, holding that his mid-range sentence of forty months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release was both substantively and procedurally reasonable.Defendant pleaded guilty to reentering the United States illegally as a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2). The district court sentenced Defendant to forty months' imprisonment, followed by a supervised release term of three years. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly treated the properly calculated guideline sentencing range as the starting point in determining Defendant's sentence, and the district court properly explained the basis for the sentence; and (2) the sentence was substantively reasonable because the sentencing court gave a plausible sentencing rationale and reached a defensible result. View "United States v. Abreu-Garcia" on Justia Law

In this foreclosure case, a panel of the First Circuit withdrew its earlier opinion in this case, vacated the judgment below, and certified a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), reasoning that if serious harm was threatened as a result of this litigation that might prompt the SJC to reexamine its precedents, the SJC can address it.In the First Circuit's previous decision, the panel concluded that JP Mortgage Chase, holder of a mortgage on Plaintiffs' home, could not properly foreclose the mortgage based on Plaintiffs' failure to pay their required months installments because the foreclosure notice was inaccurate. Citing wide support from the banking community, Chase filed a petition for rehearing, claiming that a state banking regulation required Chase to use the precise language it had used in its pre-foreclosure notice to Plaintiffs. The First Circuit ordered certification of a question to the SJC regarding the pre-foreclosure notice in this case and whether the notice was inaccurate or deceptive in a manner that rendered the subsequent foreclosure sale void under Massachusetts law. View "Thompson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the Town of Duxbury, Massachusetts and the Town's chief of police, and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983, holding that Plaintiff could not reasonably have expected privacy in his phone service provider's cell and home phone records.In 2015, the chief of police opened an internal investigation concerning Plaintiff, a police officer with the Town. In 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that Defendants compelled Plaintiff to turn over his phone records in connection with the investigation and that this constituted an illegal warrantless search in violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that a phone subscriber has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone service provider's records of the numbers that the subscriber has dialed and from which the subscriber as received calls, and Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records simply because he asked for a copy of the records at issue. View "Johnson v. Town of Duxbury, Massachusetts" on Justia Law