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

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed in connection with Defendant’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. The district court sentenced Defendant to ninety-five months imprisonment. In calculating Defendant’s sentence, the district court applied three enhancements: a two-level enhancement for possession of a stolen gun, a four-level enhancement for using a gun in connection with another felony, and a two-level enhancement for obstructing justice by committing perjury at trial. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court’s application of these enhancements. the First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no error in the district court’s imposition of the three enhancements. View "United States v. Colby" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant and for obstructing the due administration of justice. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that a series of errors occurred at his trial that either singly or in combination required reversal of his convictions. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support both convictions; (2) the district court erred in admitting into evidence a certain email, but the error was harmless; and (3) there were either no individual errors or the objections to the alleged errors were waived, with the sole exception being the admission of the email into evidence, but because the error was harmless, Defendant’s cumulative error argument was without merit. View "United States v. Ducoudray-Acevedo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of an order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which declined Petitioner’s petition for review of a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) imposing fines for violations related to an accident at a construction worksite in Massachusetts. Before the First Circuit, Petitioner argued that OSHA wrongly held it responsible for the acts and omissions of a subcontractor. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the administrative law judge’s findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence considering the record as a whole. View "A.C. Castle Construction Co. v. Acosta" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying Petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture Act (CAT). In her applications, Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, claimed that she was persecuted, and faced future persecution, at the hands of Salvadorian gang members on account of her family membership. An immigration judge (IJ) credited Petitioner’s testimony as true but nonetheless denied relief. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner could not satisfy her claim for asylum, and therefore, she also could not satisfy her claim for withholding of removal; and (2) Petitioner provided no basis by which the court should reverse the BIA’s decision denying her protection under the CAT. View "Villalta-Martinez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

A trial court that wishes to us the McDonnell Douglas framework, see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-804 (1973), as part of its jury instructions should translate it into everyday parlance and fit it to the facts and circumstances of a particular case.In this case alleging violations of federal and state law, including the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court entering a take-nothing verdict in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred in employing the McDonnell Douglas framework in its jury instructions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court’s jury instructions as a whole were satisfactory. View "Teixeira v. Town of Coventry" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellee Omni Hotels Management Corporation (“Omni”) in this negligence action brought by Appellant Henry Mu. Mu was assaulted by an unidentified group of individuals in the lobby of the Omni Providence Hotel, which Omni operated. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Omni, ruling that Omni owed Plaintiff no legal duty, Plaintiff failed to make out the relevant standard of care and show a breach of that standard, Plaintiff failed to show causation, and Plaintiff’s allegations of evidentiary spoliation did not warrant a negative inference in his favor. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that Plaintiff’s negligence claim was sufficient to survive summary judgment. View "Mu v. Omni Hotels Management Corp." on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeking relief from the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of Petitioner’s application for withholding of removal (WOR) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In his application, Petitioner claimed that he had experienced past persecution and faced a clear probability of future persecution in Honduras on account of his family membership. The IJ determined that Petitioner failed to establish that he had suffered - or was likely to suffer in the future - harm that was sufficient to constitute persecution and related to his family membership. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that none of Petitioner’s claims warranted relief from the decisions of the IJ and BIA. View "Ruiz-Escobar v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Plaintiffs in this alleging that certain assets should have been distributed to the estate of the decedent in this case, holding that the district court improperly granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs.In 2003, the decedent established an individual retirement account (IRA) with Mesirow Financial (Mesirow IRA) and designated Alyssa Jane D’Amore, his then-wife, as beneficiary. The couple divorced, but the decedent never revoked the beneficiary of the designation. The decedent later transferred the majority of his Mesirow IRA assets to a TD Ameritrade IRA. Upon the decedent’s death, Mesirow distributed the remaining assets in the Mesirow IRA to D’Amore. Plaintiffs, the primary beneficiary of the decedent and the executor of the decedent’s estate, filed suit against D’Amore, alleging that the Mesirow assets should have instead been distributed to the decedent’s estate. The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The First Circuit reversed and remanded with directions to enter summary judgment for D’Amore, holding that because a request to transfer all assets was never made, the beneficiary designation was never revoked and D’Amore was entitled to the remaining assets in the account upon the decedent’s death. View "Cooper v. D'Amore" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Plaintiffs in this alleging that certain assets should have been distributed to the estate of the decedent in this case, holding that the district court improperly granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs.In 2003, the decedent established an individual retirement account (IRA) with Mesirow Financial (Mesirow IRA) and designated Alyssa Jane D’Amore, his then-wife, as beneficiary. The couple divorced, but the decedent never revoked the beneficiary of the designation. The decedent later transferred the majority of his Mesirow IRA assets to a TD Ameritrade IRA. Upon the decedent’s death, Mesirow distributed the remaining assets in the Mesirow IRA to D’Amore. Plaintiffs, the primary beneficiary of the decedent and the executor of the decedent’s estate, filed suit against D’Amore, alleging that the Mesirow assets should have instead been distributed to the decedent’s estate. The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The First Circuit reversed and remanded with directions to enter summary judgment for D’Amore, holding that because a request to transfer all assets was never made, the beneficiary designation was never revoked and D’Amore was entitled to the remaining assets in the account upon the decedent’s death. View "Cooper v. D'Amore" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of three federal post-conviction relief petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255, holding that the three petitions were untimely.Petitioners in these consolidated appeals each pled guilty to a federal firearm offense, and each had a history of Maine state burglary convictions. Each petitioner filed a federal habeas petition alleging that they no longer qualified for a sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because the ACCA’s residual clause was invalidated by Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. __ (2015) (Johnson II). All three petitions filed their habeas petitions outside of the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(1). Specifically, Petitioners alleged that their petitions were timely because Johnson II, which is retroactively applicable, was the source of their claims. The district court dismissed the petitions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the federal habeas petitions were untimely because they raised Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. __ (2016), claims, not Johnson II claims, and Mathis does not reset the statute of limitations under section 2255(f)(3). View "Dimott v. United States" on Justia Law