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

The appellant, Misael M. Rivera-Gerena, was aboard a vessel in U.S. waters when the Coast Guard seized 52 packages containing amphetamine and cocaine, along with an additional 448 bricks of cocaine. Rivera-Gerena was arrested and indicted. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 150 kilograms but less than 450 kilograms of cocaine on a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The district court accepted his plea and ordered a presentence investigation report (PSI Report).The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico set a guideline sentencing range (GSR) of 262 to 327 months, based on the actual amount of cocaine seized. The statute of conviction carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months. The government recommended a 135-month sentence, while Rivera-Gerena requested the mandatory minimum of 120 months, citing his acceptance of responsibility and other mitigating factors. The district court considered the plea agreement and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the need to promote respect for the law and protect the public. The court acknowledged Rivera-Gerena's personal circumstances but emphasized the seriousness of the offense and his criminal history. Ultimately, the court imposed a 147-month sentence, varying downward from the GSR but higher than the parties' recommendations.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Rivera-Gerena argued that his sentence was procedurally flawed and substantively unreasonable, claiming the district court failed to adequately evaluate the § 3553(a) factors. The appellate court found no procedural error, noting the district court had considered all relevant factors and provided a plausible rationale for the sentence. The court also found the sentence substantively reasonable, given the seriousness of the offense and Rivera-Gerena's criminal history. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Rivera-Gerena" on Justia Law

Amanda J. Bazinet, an executive office manager at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in Milton, Massachusetts, was terminated after the Hospital implemented a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy. Bazinet sought a religious exemption, citing her Christian beliefs and opposition to vaccines developed using fetal cell lines from aborted fetuses. The Hospital denied her request without engaging in an interactive process and subsequently terminated her employment.Bazinet filed a civil action alleging religious discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Massachusetts anti-discrimination law. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed her religious discrimination claims sua sponte, ruling that Bazinet failed to allege a sincerely held religious belief and that accommodating her would cause the Hospital undue hardship.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Bazinet had sufficiently alleged a religious belief conflicting with the vaccine requirement, as her accommodation request and supporting letter detailed her religious objections. The court also determined that the sincerity of Bazinet's beliefs and the undue hardship defense required further factual development and could not be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage.The First Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of Bazinet's religious discrimination claims and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the claims to proceed past the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. View "Bazinet v. Beth Israel Lahey Health, Inc." on Justia Law

Attorney James Hayes faced a four-count petition for discipline filed by the Massachusetts Bar Counsel, accusing him of fraud, violating court orders, mishandling client funds, and other dishonest conduct. These charges stemmed from his representation of a client who concealed lottery winnings to avoid child support. A hearing committee of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers found merit in all counts and recommended disbarment. Hayes appealed to the Board, which upheld the committee's findings. A single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) agreed and disbarred Hayes. The SJC affirmed this decision.Upon receiving the SJC's judgment, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ordered Hayes to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed. Hayes requested a hearing and argued that a term suspension, rather than disbarment, was appropriate. He contended that the SJC's decision was flawed due to errors in assessing the credibility of the principal witness, his former client, and that the SJC mischaracterized his conduct as fraudulent. Hayes also argued that the SJC typically imposes less severe discipline in similar cases and highlighted mitigating factors such as his years of good standing.The First Circuit reviewed the state court record and found no basis to depart from the SJC's findings. The court determined that the hearing committee reasonably credited the former client's testimony and that Hayes failed to show clear and convincing evidence of procedural irregularities or errors in the SJC's decision. The court concluded that Hayes did not demonstrate that less severe discipline was warranted and disbarred him from practicing law before the First Circuit. The Clerk of Court was instructed to forward a copy of the opinion to the SJC. View "In re Hayes" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, representing their minor son, sued a hospital and a doctor for medical malpractice after their baby suffered birth injuries during delivery. They sought $6,000,000 in damages. Under Puerto Rico law, damages would be capped at $150,000 if the doctor was a faculty member at the hospital at the time of the birth. The defendants claimed the doctor was a faculty member, but could not produce a contract to prove it. The district court held a pretrial evidentiary hearing and concluded that the doctor was a faculty member, thus applying the statutory cap on damages.The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico adopted a magistrate judge's Report & Recommendation, which stated that the applicability of the statutory cap was a matter of law. The district court found that the doctor was a faculty member based on testimony and letters from the medical school, despite the absence of a contract. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the applicability of the statutory cap was a factual question that should have been decided by a jury.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that whether the doctor was a faculty member at the time of the birth was a factual question requiring a jury's determination. The court found that the evidence was not one-sided enough to compel the district court's conclusion and that the district court improperly took the question from the jury. The First Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Perez-Perez v. Hospital Episcopal San Lucas Inc." on Justia Law

Cynthia Roberge, a State of Rhode Island employee, was involved in a car accident with an underinsured motorist while driving her personal vehicle during the course of her employment. She sought uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage under the State's insurance policy issued by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America. Travelers denied her claim, stating that she was not entitled to UM/UIM coverage because she was not driving a "covered auto" as defined by the policy.Roberge filed a lawsuit in Providence County Superior Court, asserting claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and bad faith. Travelers removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Travelers, concluding that Roberge was not entitled to UM/UIM coverage under the policy's terms and that neither the Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision in Martinelli v. Travelers Insurance Companies nor the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute required such coverage.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the policy's language clearly excluded Roberge from UM/UIM coverage because she was not driving a "covered auto." However, the court found that the case raised unresolved questions of Rhode Island insurance law, particularly regarding the applicability of the Martinelli exception and the requirements of the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute. The First Circuit decided to certify two questions to the Rhode Island Supreme Court: whether an employee must be considered a named insured under an employer's auto insurance policy when operating a personal vehicle in the scope of employment, and whether it violates Rhode Island law and public policy for an employer's policy to provide liability but not UM/UIM coverage to employees in such circumstances. The case was stayed pending the Rhode Island Supreme Court's response. View "Roberge v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America" on Justia Law

A land dispute in Ecuador between Jose Vicente Penafiel-Peralta and his sister Sandra led to Penafiel-Peralta, his wife Monica Lourdes Castro-Pineda, and their minor son G.E.P.C. being forced from their home. After being threatened by Sandra and a former military member, Borroso, who claimed ownership of the land, the family fled to the United States. Penafiel-Peralta applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), with Castro-Pineda and G.E.P.C. listed as derivatives on the asylum application.An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all applications, finding that the threats did not amount to persecution, there was no nexus between the threats and a protected ground, and there was insufficient evidence that the Ecuadorian government was unable or unwilling to protect them. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that the threats were due to a personal land dispute and not because of any protected ground, and that the family did not report the threats to the police, undermining their claim of government inaction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the BIA and IJ correctly applied the mixed-motive analysis and found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the threats were due to a personal land dispute rather than family membership. The court also noted that the record did not compel a conclusion that family membership was a central reason for the persecution. Consequently, the court denied the petition for review, affirming the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. View "Penafiel-Peralta v. Garland" on Justia Law

Patricia Marily Lemus-Aguilar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection on February 21, 2016. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against her, and she filed for asylum, claiming persecution based on her membership in the particular social group of "single, Salvadoran mothers with no familial protection." She provided supporting documents, including declarations and reports on gang violence and gender-based violence in El Salvador. Lemus-Aguilar testified that gang members threatened her and her daughter, demanding that she sell drugs for them due to her home's proximity to their drug activities.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Lemus-Aguilar credible and acknowledged that the threats she received amounted to past persecution. However, the IJ denied her asylum claim, concluding that she failed to establish a nexus between the persecution and a protected ground. The IJ determined that the gang targeted her for refusing to participate in their drug trafficking, not because of her status as a single mother. The IJ also found that her proposed social group was not legally cognizable due to its lack of particularity and determinacy.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision. The BIA agreed that Lemus-Aguilar's proposed social group was insufficiently particular and that she failed to show that her membership in this group was a central reason for her persecution. The BIA noted that the gang's motivation appeared to be extortionary rather than based on her familial status.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA's decision. The court found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that Lemus-Aguilar's status as a single mother was not a central reason for her persecution. The court noted that the gang's primary motivation was to further their drug trafficking activities, and there was no compelling evidence that her lack of familial protection was a significant factor. Consequently, the court denied Lemus-Aguilar's petition for review. View "Lemus-Aguilar v. Garland" on Justia Law

B.R.S. Real Estate, Inc. owned a commercial property in West Warwick, Rhode Island, which suffered extensive water damage in 2018 due to frozen and burst pipes. B.R.S. filed an insurance claim under a policy issued by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London. Disagreements arose over the amount of the loss, leading to an appraisal process involving party-appointed appraisers and a neutral umpire. The appraisal panel issued an award, which B.R.S. contested, arguing that the appraiser appointed by the insurers was biased and that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on its claim for withheld depreciation.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island initially denied the defendants' motion to confirm the appraisal award, citing the need for discovery. After discovery, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that no reasonable jury could find the appraiser biased or the umpire incompetent. The court also found that B.R.S. had not met the policy conditions for receiving the withheld depreciation, as the property had not been repaired or replaced for the same use.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the district court correctly applied the summary judgment standard and that B.R.S. could not challenge the appraiser's impartiality post-decision based on information known before the appraisal. The court also found that the umpire was competent and that B.R.S. failed to provide evidence that the property was repaired or replaced for the same use, as required by the policy. Consequently, the court upheld the denial of the withheld depreciation and confirmed the appraisal award. View "B.R.S. Real Estate, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London" on Justia Law

Manish Kumar was involved in a scheme to smuggle misbranded prescription drugs and controlled substances into the United States from March 2015 to August 2019. Kumar, an Indian national, was a partner in Mihu, a New Delhi-based company that sold generic versions of drugs like Viagra, Cialis, Adderall, and tramadol without FDA approval or proper prescriptions. Kumar managed call centers in India where representatives made false statements to U.S. customers, claiming the drugs were FDA-approved and that no prescriptions were needed. Kumar was arrested in August 2019 on unrelated identity theft charges and later charged in Massachusetts with conspiracy to smuggle drugs, distribute controlled substances, and make false statements. He pled guilty to all charges in October 2022.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts sentenced Kumar to 87 months in prison. The court applied a fraud cross-reference in the Sentencing Guidelines and accepted the government's estimate of the loss amount involved in the offense, which was approximately $3.8 million. Kumar objected to both the application of the fraud cross-reference and the loss amount calculation, arguing that the evidence was insufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the fraud cross-reference was correctly applied because the false statements made by call center representatives were within the scope of Kumar's conspiracy and were made in furtherance of the criminal activity. The court also found that the sentencing court did not clearly err in its loss amount calculation, as it relied on detailed government estimates and supporting data. The First Circuit affirmed Kumar's 87-month sentence. View "United States v. Kumar" on Justia Law

The case involves Jozelia Maria De Oliveira Rodrigues and her minor daughter, Brazilian citizens who fled to the United States after being threatened by their neighbor, a drug dealer named Joao Carlos (J.C.). They applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their applications, primarily due to an adverse credibility finding regarding De Oliveira's testimony. The IJ found several inconsistencies between her written statements, her testimony, and her statements during a credible fear interview (CFI). These inconsistencies included details about her family situation, the threats she received, and her interactions with J.C.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing with the adverse credibility finding. The BIA highlighted the same inconsistencies noted by the IJ and also pointed out the lack of corroborating evidence, such as police reports or statements from De Oliveira's family members. The BIA concluded that the adverse credibility finding was sufficiently supported by the record and upheld the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA also noted that Petitioners did not challenge the IJ's denial of CAT protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA's decision. The court found that the adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence, including specific inconsistencies in De Oliveira's statements and the lack of corroborating evidence. The court noted that the standard of review for adverse credibility findings is deferential and that the record did not compel a contrary determination. Consequently, the court denied the petition for review, affirming the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. View "De Oliveira Rodrigues v. Garland" on Justia Law