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

The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s sentence of forty months for illegal possession of a machine gun, holding that there was no reversible error or abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision.After Appellant pled guilty to the offense, the district court calculated a Sentencing Guidelines range of twenty-four to thirty months. Ultimately, the district court imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of forty months. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erroneously relied on disputed facts and abused its discretion in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not err in adopting the facts as stated in the presentence report; and (2) the district court acted well within its discretion in imposing a forty-month sentence on Appellant. View "United States v. Severino-Pacheco" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s order revoking Appellant’s supervised release, holding that the district court’s decision was not an abuse of discretion.In 2009, Appellant was sentenced to a term of seventy-eight months of imprisonment for a drug offense, later reduced to sixty-three months and an eight-year period of supervised release. The district court subsequently found that Appellant unlawfully possessed and distributed a controlled substance and revoked Appellant's supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court’s decision revoking Appellant’s supervised release was not an abuse of discretion and that the court did not violate Appellant’s due process rights. View "United States v. Bodon-Lespier" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that Plaintiff was not discriminated against but that Defendant’s decision to terminate her employment, rather than impose lesser discipline, was in retaliation for protected conduct, holding that the district court’s rulings were not erroneous or an abuse of discretion.In her complaint, Plaintiff, a former employee of the U.S. Postal Service, argued that her termination was unlawfully discriminatory due to her race and national origin and, independently, was in retaliation for her having filed earlier complaints. Defendant appealed the ruling that Defendant’s termination was in retaliation for protected conduct, and Plaintiff appealed the remedy awarded - back pay but not reinstatement or front pay. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no error in the district court’s judgments. View "Anderson v. Brennan" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed Defendant’s appeal from his sentence as moot because Defendant had already completed serving the custodial sentence he attempted to challenge on appeal.Defendant pled guilty to unlawfully attempting to enter the United States after being removed therefrom following an aggravated felony conviction. The district court imposed a twenty-one month custodial sentence following by three years of supervised release. Defendant appealed his custodial sentence, and his appeal was still pending when he completed his custodial term and began serving his term of supervised release. The First Circuit summarily dismissed the appeal as moot because the appeal, even if successful, would not lead to any effectual relief. View "United States v. Suarez-Reyes" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgments of the district court convicting Alba Pena and Indranis Rocheford, sisters, of multiple counts of wire fraud and Rocheford’s sentence to thirty-three months in prison and three years of supervised release, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain both Rocheford’s and Pena’s convictions; (2) there was no merit to Pena’s contention that the district court erred by now allowing her to testify as to certain witness statements and that she was prejudiced in her ability to mount a “good faith” defense to the wire fraud charges; (3) the district court did not err in failing to give a particular instruction concerning unanimity; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Rocheford’s sentence. View "United States v. Pena" on Justia Law

At issue was whether 11 U.S.C. 362(c)(3)(A) terminates the automatic stay as to actions against property of the bankruptcy estate.Maine’s Bureau of Revenue Services (MRS) had a claim for a tax debt owed by Leland Smith, a repeat Chapter 13 bankruptcy filer. At issue int his appeal was the scope of the termination of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay for repeat filers like Smith who file a second petition for bankruptcy within a year of the dismissal of a prior bankruptcy case. Thirty days after the filing of his bankruptcy petition, some part of the stay had terminated under section 362(c)(3)(A). Smith argued that the stay only terminated as to actions against the debtor and the debtor’s property, not as to actions against the property of the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court ruled that the automatic stay had terminated in full, including as to property of the estate, and the district court affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that section 362(c)(3)(A) terminates the entire stay thirty days after the filing of a second petition. View "Smith v. State of Maine Bureau of Revenue Services" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s appeal of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her request for deferral of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding holding that the BIA’s factual determinations were supported by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence on the record.Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, sought deferral of removal under the CAT, basing her claim on domestic abuse that she suffered at the hands of her partner of fifteen years. An immigration judge (IJ) found Petitioner to be credible in describing her abuse and granted deferral of removal. The BIA reversed the IJ’s determination, noting that the IJ applied an incorrect legal standard. The BIA then concluded that Petitioner did not meet her burden of establishing that the government had acquiesced in her harm or would be more likely than not to do so if she were to return. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the BIA did not err in finding that Petitioner had not established that the government would acquiesce in her harm upon removal. View "Ruiz-Guerrero v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

In this case against members of the Rhode Island Board of Bar Examiners the First Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of attorneys’ fees in favor of Plaintiff and affirmed the court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, holding that Plaintiff’s supposed “prevailing party” status was not justified.Plaintiff, an individual with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and anxiety, filed suit against members of the Board challenging the Board’s denial of his request for certain accommodations to assist him in taking the Rhode Island bar exam. The district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring the Board to permit Plaintiff the requested accommodations, dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint, and allowed Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees. On review, the First Circuit held (1) Plaintiff’s success in gaining a TRO did not warrant an award of attorneys’ fees; and (2) the district court’s decision to allow the Board’s motion to dismiss the damage claim in the complaint was correct. View "Sinapi v. Rhode Island Board of Bar Examiners" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition seeking judicial review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his application for asylum, holding that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that Petitioner was not entitled to asylum.Petitioner premised his asylum application on a claim that he had been persecuted in the past, and feared future persecution, by gang members on account of of his political opinion and/or membership in a particular social group. The immigration judge (IJ) rejected Petitioner’s request for asylum. The BIA upheld the IJ’s findings, determining that Petitioner had failed to establish a nexus between the harm that he described and any statutorily protected ground for asylum status. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding that Scatambuli v. Holder, 558 F.3d 53, 59 (1st Cir. 2009), controlled the outcome of this case, requiring that this Court uphold the BIA’s determination. View "Mendez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment followed by thirty-six months of supervised release, holding that there was no error requiring reversal of the conviction or sentence.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) Defendant’s challenges to several of the district court’s evidentiary rulings were unavailing; and (3) on plain error review, Defendant’s three claims of sentencing error did not amount to plain error. View "United States v. Obiora" on Justia Law