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

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant enhancing Defendant’s offense level by four levels, resulting in a guideline sentencing range of seventy to eighty-seven months in connection with its finding that Defendant had been an organizer or leader of a conspiracy of five or more persons to procure and distribute cocaine and heroin. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence supported only a three-level enhancement for being a “manager or supervisor,” rather than an organizer or leader. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that the uncontested factual record supported the court’s conclusion that Defendant was the leader of the criminal activity at issue. View "United States v. Payne" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant enhancing Defendant’s offense level by four levels, resulting in a guideline sentencing range of seventy to eighty-seven months in connection with its finding that Defendant had been an organizer or leader of a conspiracy of five or more persons to procure and distribute cocaine and heroin. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence supported only a three-level enhancement for being a “manager or supervisor,” rather than an organizer or leader. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that the uncontested factual record supported the court’s conclusion that Defendant was the leader of the criminal activity at issue. View "United States v. Payne" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to a 120-month term of imprisonment in connection with Defendant’s plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and importation of five kilograms or more of cocaine into the United States. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying a mitigating role adjustment under United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) section 3B1.2 and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err in denying Defendant a minor role adjustment; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. De-La-Cruz-Gutierrez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to a 120-month term of imprisonment in connection with Defendant’s plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and importation of five kilograms or more of cocaine into the United States. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying a mitigating role adjustment under United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) section 3B1.2 and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err in denying Defendant a minor role adjustment; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. De-La-Cruz-Gutierrez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied the petition filed by Petitioner, a Guatemalan national, seeking judicial review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT).At the conclusion of a removal hearing, an immigration judge (IJ) concluded that Petitioner was ineligible for either asylum or withholding for removal because she was unable to show that the harm she suffered in Guatemala was on account of a statutorily protected ground. The IJ also concluded that Petitioner did not qualify for CAT protection. After the BIA upheld the IJ’s decision, Petitioner sought judicial review. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, as to Petitioner’s application for asylum and for withholding of removal, the IJ and BIA supportably found that Petitioner failed to establish a nexus between the claimed harm and a statutorily protected ground. View "Perez-Rabanales v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denials of Defendant’s motions for suppression and severance and declined to vacate Defendant’s sentence.Defendant pled guilty to crimes related to the distribution of drugs. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a stop and search of a taxi and also filed a motion to sever his trial from that of his codefendants and for relief from prejudicial joinder. The district court denied both motions after hearings. The sentencing judge sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment of thirty-six months, followed by thirty-six months of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress and did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to sever; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Azor" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denials of Defendant’s motions for suppression and severance and declined to vacate Defendant’s sentence.Defendant pled guilty to crimes related to the distribution of drugs. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a stop and search of a taxi and also filed a motion to sever his trial from that of his codefendants and for relief from prejudicial joinder. The district court denied both motions after hearings. The sentencing judge sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment of thirty-six months, followed by thirty-six months of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress and did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to sever; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Azor" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the trial court, entered after a jury trial, ruling in favor of Plaintiff on both her gender-based hostile work environment discrimination and retaliation claims. The court awarded Plaintiff emotional and front pay damages. Defendant, the City of Providence, appealed from the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, making numerous arguments as to why the jury verdict should be set aside or, in the alternative, why the judge’s front pay award should be stricken. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant’s arguments and assignments of error were unavailing. View "Franchina v. Providence Fire Department" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ two suits against the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), holding that the EPA’s role in developing and approving several total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) in Massachusetts and Rhode Island did not constitute a decision that required the EPA to send notices under 40 C.F.R. 124.52(b), a regulation promulgated under the Clean Water Act (Act).In this case, Plaintiffs argued that, in helping to develop and in approving the TDMLs at issue, the EPA made certain determinations that triggered a duty to send notices in compliance with 40 C.F.R. 124.52(b). The lower courts found that these suits had no toehold in the Act’s limited authorization of citizen suits against the EPA, which is otherwise entitled to sovereign immunity. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) the EPA’s approval of the TMDLs was not a decision that an individual permit was required within the meaning of the statute; (2) the EPA’s approval of the TMDLs did not therefore trigger the notice requirement; and (3) consequently, the complaints alleged no failure by the EPA to perform a nondiscretionary duty. View "Conservation Law Foundation v. Pruitt" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition but vacated his sentence. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of the vehicle he was driving and that the district court erred in finding that he qualified for a mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The First Circuit held (1) under the circumstances of this case, the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applied, and the search of the vehicle Defendant was driving was reasonable; and (2) Defendant was improperly sentenced as an armed career criminal. The court remanded the case for resentencing with the ACCA enhancement. View "United States v. Kennedy" on Justia Law