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

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing a suit that challenged the lawfulness of a 2012 foreclosure sale of a Massachusetts home.In their complaint, Plaintiffs, who formerly owned the property at issue, alleged that Defendants - OneWest Bank, Indymac Mortgage Services, Ocwen Servicing, and the Federal National Mortgage Association - had engaged in unfair and predatory mortgage lending and loan servicing practices. The complaint set forth nine claims. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss all of the claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) dismissing three claims for which Plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring that the foreclosure sale was void; (2) dismissing for lack of standing the claim in which Plaintiffs sought to quiet title; (3) dismissing the claim for breach of the duty of good faith and reasonable diligence on the basis that there was no such duty; and (4) dismissing Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. View "Flores v. OneWest Bank, F.S.B." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and for being a prohibited person in possession of ammunition and his sentence, subject to a remand for the limited purpose of striking a chid pornography forfeiture order. The Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence of Defendant’s knowing possession of the contraband to support both convictions; (2) Defendant’s arguments that various alleged errors in the proceedings below required vacating his convictions were unavailing; (3) the district court did not err in including in Defendant’s sentence a condition of supervised release that Defendant be evaluated for participation in a mental health treatment program; and (4) the district court’s order of forfeiture of materials or property used in the possession or distribution of child pornography was an error and should be struck from the written judgment. View "United States v. Padilla-Galarza" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering and his sentence of fifty-five months in prison. The Court held that the district court did not err in (1) denying Defendant’s motion for acquittal on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction; (2) applying a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2S1.1(b)(1) after finding that Defendant knew that the crime of money laundering involved the proceeds of drug trafficking; and (3) denying Defendant a reduction based on his allegedly having a “minor or minimal” role in the offense. View "United States v. Gomez-Encarnacion" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for tax evasion, unlawful distribution of controlled substances, and health-care fraud, holding that Defendant was fairly tried and lawfully convicted. The Court held (1) the district court did not err in admitting other-acts evidence regarding Defendant’s sexual abuse of his daughter; (2) any error in the other evidentiary rulings disputed by Defendant on appeal were harmless; (3) the district court did not err in refusing to sever the tax evasion counts; (4) Defendant’s challenges to the district court’s jury instructions on the drug-distribution counts were unavailing; and (5) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction on the drug-distribution counts. View "United States v. Sabean" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review from the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s application, ruling that his claimed social group was not a protected ground under the Immigration and Nationality Act and that Petitioner had not established a nexus between his alleged persecution, or fear of future persecution, and any protected ground. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the IJ’s decision, concluding that Petitioner did not establish that any persecution he had suffered or feared was on account of a protected ground. The First Circuit agreed, holding that there was substantial evidence before the IJ and BIA that Petitioner failed to meet his burden to establish a nexus between his alleged persecution and a statutorily protected ground. View "Lopez-Lopez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the eighty-four-month prison term Defendant received on a firearm charge following a remand for resentencing. On appeal from his resentencing, Defendant claimed that the trial judge incorrectly rejected the parties’ plea agreement in which the parties jointly recommended a sixty-month sentence and that the judge procedurally erred in sentencing him to eighty-four months of imprisonment. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) contrary to Defendant’s argument, the judge did accept the plea agreement and simply rejected the parties’ sentencing recommendation; and (2) Defendant could not succeed on his procedural unreasonableness claim. View "United States v. Garay-Sierra" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the convictions of co-defendants Doris Morel and Erika Tomasino for conspiracy and multiple fraud-related counts based on their participation in a multi-year tax-return fraud scheme.On appeal, Morel raised only a Batson jury claim. Tomasino adopted the Batson claim and raised four claims of her own. The First Circuit denied the claims, holding (1) the Batson challenge patently lacked merit; (2) the government produced sufficient evidence to support Tomasino’s conviction for aggravated identity theft; (2) the district court did not err in giving the jury a Pinkerton instruction; (3) the district court did not commit clear error in admitting against Tomasino incriminating statements made by Morel; and (4) the district court properly admitted testimony from IRS Special Agent Matthew Amsden. View "United States v. Morel" on Justia Law

Amendment 794 to the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines clarifies the Sentencing Commission’s original intent regarding section 3B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines and therefore applies retroactively.Defendant pleaded guilty to two cocaine-related charges under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). On appeal, Defendant challenged the constitutionality of the MDLEA and section 3B1.2 and argued that he should be resentenced under the Sentencing Commission’s amended guidance in Amendment 794. The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) Congress did not exceed its constitutional authority in promulgating the MDLEA; (2) section 3B1.2 is not void for vagueness; but (3) Amendment 794 is clarifying, not substantive, and is therefore retroactively applicable. View "United States v. Sarmiento-Palacios" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of her appeal from the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal of herself and, derivatively, her two minor children, holding that Petitioner’s challenge to the denial of her claims failed.At her removal proceedings before the immigration judge (IJ), Petitioner testified and submitted a declaration in support of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal, claiming that she suffered past persecution in Honduras on account of her membership in her family and that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her familial ties. The IJ denied Petitioner’s applications and ordered Petitioner and her minor children removed. The BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. The First Circuit agreed with the IJ and the BIA, holding that Petitioner’s challenge to the denial of her asylum claim failed, and so, for identical reasons, did her challenge to the denial of her withholding of removal claim also fail. View "Sosa-Perez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of her appeal from the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal of herself and, derivatively, her two minor children, holding that Petitioner’s challenge to the denial of her claims failed.At her removal proceedings before the immigration judge (IJ), Petitioner testified and submitted a declaration in support of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal, claiming that she suffered past persecution in Honduras on account of her membership in her family and that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her familial ties. The IJ denied Petitioner’s applications and ordered Petitioner and her minor children removed. The BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. The First Circuit agreed with the IJ and the BIA, holding that Petitioner’s challenge to the denial of her asylum claim failed, and so, for identical reasons, did her challenge to the denial of her withholding of removal claim also fail. View "Sosa-Perez v. Sessions" on Justia Law