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

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court sentencing Defendant to forty-six months’ imprisonment in connection with Defendant’s plea of guilty to a charge of possessing a machine gun, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally flawed nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant’s guilty plea placed him in a federal guideline sentencing range (GSR) of twenty-four to thirty months’ imprisonment. After considering the facts of Defendant’s offense as well as other sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), the district court determined that a sentence above the GSR was appropriate and sentenced Defendant to forty-six months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the forty-six-month variant incarceration was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Contreras-Delgado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court ruling that Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) breached its duty to defend the Wellesley Advisory Reality Fund, I, LLC (WARF) in a prior action and awarding damages, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.In 2014, Appellees in the instant case brought suit against WARF, acting in their capacity as representatives of the Board of Trustees for the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension and Annuity Funds (the Funds). Default judgment was entered against WARF, and WARF assigned the Funds its rights in WARF’s insurance policy with Scottsdale, which had refused to defend WARF. Scottsdale later brought an action against Appellees seeking a declaration that it did not owe WARF a duty to defend or indemnify under certain exclusions in the policy. The district court ultimately concluded that the the exceptions in the insurer’s policies did not relieve Scottsdale of its duty to defend WARF in the prior action, awarding the Funds the full limits of the insurance policy plus post-judgment interest. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no basis for excusing Scottsdale from its duty to defend or from which to relieve Scottsdale of its obligation to pay the policy limit. View "Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Byrne" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition seeking judicial review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings, holding that the BIA did not commit an error of law or abuse its wide discretion.After the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner and the case was remanded, an immigration judge (IJ) ultimately denied Petitioner’s motion to suppress, ordered Petitioner removed, and granted voluntary departure. The BIA upheld the IJ’s decision. Petitioner filed a motion to reopen, arguing that changed conditions in Mexico made her newly eligible for asylum. The BIA denied the motion to reopen. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. View "Garcia-Aguilar v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court finding that an arbitration agreement between the parties in this case was enforceable, granting AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc.’s (AT&T) motion to compel arbitration and dismissing Nereida Rivera-Colon’s (Rivera) suit, holding that Rivera manifested her intent to accept the agreement to arbitrate legal grievances as per Puerto Rico law.Rivera filed suit against AT&T, her former employer, alleging age discrimination and wrongful termination. AT&T entered a special appearance and moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. In response, Rivera argued that there was no valid arbitration agreement. The district court held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and granted the motion to compel arbitration. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, under Puerto Rico law, Rivera was bound by the arbitration agreement because she failed to opt out of the agreement. View "Rivera-Colon v. AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s complaint claiming that he was fired from his job in retaliation for accusing his employer of violating the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and making false representations in customer contracts, holding that Appellant plausibly pleaded that he engaged in protected conduct within the meaning of a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation claim.The district court dismissed the complaint after finding that Appellant did not allege sufficient facts to show he was engaged in protected conduct within the meaning of the retaliation provision of the FCA. The First Circuit affirmed as to the contractual language claim but vacated and remanded as to the AKS claim, holding that Appellant plausibly pleaded that the concerns he raised about certain payments could have led to an FCA action. View "Guilfoile v. Shields" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied and dismissed Petitioner’s petition challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) denial of her motion to reopen and the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen her case to grant her request for an adjustment of status, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Petitioner’s petition for review was denied as to her challenge to the BIA’s determination that the motion to reopen was untimely; and (2) because Petitioner had no colorable constitutional or legal claim on which the Court might base jurisdiction, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to Petitioner’s challenge to the BIA’s decision not to exercise its authority to reopen sua sponte. View "Gyamfi v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court in connection with Defendant’s conviction of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, holding that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.Defendant received a guideline sentence of forty-six months of imprisonment for his conviction. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion by applying a six-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2S1.1(b)(1) when it was not proven that he knew his crime involved drug trafficking proceeds. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was ample evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant knew that laundered funds were drug-trafficking proceeds; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Calderon-Lozano" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant on twelve federal criminal counts, including conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, Defendant’s lengthy prison sentence, and the $2.25 million money judgment forfeiture entered by the district court, holding that Defendant’s arguments on appeal were unavailing.Specifically, the Court held that the district court (1) did not manifestly abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 on the basis of what Defendant claimed was newly discovered evidence; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in ordering the forfeiture of a gold ring in partial satisfaction of the previously ordered money judgment forfeiture. View "United States v. Ponzo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions of two counts of drug trafficking in international waters while aboard a stateless vessel in violation of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. 70501-08, holding that Defendant’s challenges to his convictions failed but that the district court erred in denying Defendant a minor participant reduction under section 3B1.2(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines.Specifically, the Court held (1) in light of prior precedent concerning Defendant’s assertion about the content of international law, the Court must reject Defendant’s constitutional contention regarding the scope of Congress’s power to criminalize his conduct that he argued lacked any nexus to the United States; and (2) because Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which added five factors to the application note, applies retroactively, this case must be remanded for resentencing so that the district court can have an opportunity to apply the new factors. View "United States v. Aybar-Ulloa" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiff’s contract and tort claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that the federal court in Puerto Rico lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants.Plaintiff, a Puerto Rico tour company, brought this diversity suit in the United States District of Puerto Rico, alleging that a California youth soccer organization and related defendants breached duties that the organization owed to Plaintiff under Puerto Rico contract and tort law. The allegations centered around Defendants’ acts of first requesting that Plaintiff make an offer for a potential soccer trip to Puerto Rico for some of the organization’s teams and their families and then declining after further communications to book the tour. The district court dismissed the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the exercise of specific jurisdiction in the forum over the out-of-forum defendants did not conform to the federal constitutional test. View "PREP Tours, Inc. v. American Youth Soccer Organization" on Justia Law