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

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Insurance Brokers West, Inc.’s (IBW) complaint alleging breach of contract against Liquid Outcome, LLC, f/k/a Astonish Results, LLC (Astonish) for failure to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. In its amended complaint, IBW estimated its damages as exceeding $140,000. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that IBW’s claims did not exceed $75,000, and therefore, IBW failed to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that it was certain as a matter of law that IBW could not recover more than $75,000. View "Insurance Brokers West, Inc. v. Liquid Outcome, LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant’s motion for a new trial in his criminal case pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. Appellant was convicted of antitrust conspiracy. The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s conviction and sentence. Appellant later moved for a new trial based on freshly discovered evidence, arguing that the government offended the due process guarantees memorialized in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the earlier disclosure of the freshly discovered evidence would not have changed the outcome of the criminal case. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court’s finding that Appellant suffered no cognizable prejudice from the delayed disclosure of the information at issue was not in error. View "United States v. Peake" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of Bill Cosby’s motion to dismiss this defamation case brought by an actress who earlier accused Cosby of raping her.Kathrine McKee accused Bill Cosby in a 2014 interview published in the New York Daily News of raping her. McKee later sued Bill Cosby for defamation after the contents of an allegedly confidential letter written to the paper by Cosby’s attorney in Cosby’s defense was reported on by news outlets and websites worldwide. The district court dismissed McKee’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the challenged statements were not actionable. View "McKee v. Cosby" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions stemming from his participation in a large-scale cocaine trafficking conspiracy but vacated his life sentence and remanded for further proceedings. The court held (1) the trial evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Defendant’s participation in a drug-smuggling expedition to Antigua; and (3) the district court committed procedural error in sentencing Defendant because the court did not address Defendant’s potentially persuasive argument in favor of a sentence varying from the advisory guideline range. View "United States v. Robles-Alvarez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and remanded for reconsideration.Defendant pled guilty to one count of a six-count indictment charging him with conspiring and agreeing to possess with intent to distribute various controlled substances. The district court imposed a sentence of 102 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by eight years of supervised release. Defendant later moved to reduce his sentence on the basis of U.S.S.G. app. C supp., amend. 782, which, if applied, would drop his guidelines sentencing range to seventy-eight to ninety-seven months. The district court denied Defendant’s motion, noting Defendant’s “conduct at the Bureau of Prisons.” The First Circuit vacated the denial of Defendant’s motion because it appeared from the record that Defendant’s conduct in prison was “materially less problematic than the district court may have been led to believe.” View "United States v. Torres-Rivera" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence of 108 months’ incarceration, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.Defendant pled guilty to maritime drug and conspiracy offenses. The district court sentenced Defendant to a bottom-of-the-range guidelines sentence of 108 months’ incarceration. Defendant appealed, arguing that the sentencing court erred in not granting him a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(b). The First Circuit rejected Defendant’s argument, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to assign Defendant to a two-level downward minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(b). View "United States v. Cortez-Vergara" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court approving a sale of Frank Gangi’s assets and the assets of entities owned by him. The sale was recommended by the receiver, Carl Jenkins, who was appointed by the court to sell those assets for the benefit of Gangi’s creditors. On appeal, Gangi argued that the assets were sold to a fiduciary of the receivership estate and, consequently, that the sale was prohibited, and, alternatively, that the sale was improper and unfair. The First Circuit held (1) despite Jenkins’s arguments, this appeal was not equitably moot; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in approving the sale, and Gangi’s arguments to the contrary were without merit. View "Jenkins v. Gangi" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to vacate his consecutive sentence, holding that Appellant’s appeal from the district court’s ruling was foreclosed by the First Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Ellison, 866 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2017).Appellant was convicted of federal armed bank robbery, conspiracy, and possession of a firearm by a felon, for which he received a 210-month prison sentence. Appellant was also convicted of use of a firearm during a crime of violence, for which he received a consecutive five-year mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i). In moving to vacate his consecutive five-year sentence Appellant argued that the definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant’s crime of federal armed bank robbery still qualified as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A) - the force clause. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that federal bank robbery, and a fortiori federal armed bank robbery, are crimes of violence under the force clause of section 924(c)(3). View "Hunter v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Hospital San Cristobal’s petition for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) declaring that the Hospital had committed several unfair labor practices in violation of section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act and granted the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement of that order. The court held (1) this court lacked jurisdiction to consider the Hospital’s challenge to the validity of the underlying unfair labor practice complaints; (2) substantial evidence in the record supported the Board’s determination that the Hospital violated sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the Act; and (3) the Hospital’s challenge to the Board’s remedy was not properly before the court. View "Quality Health Services of P.R., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Kenneth Currier in this action brought by Mark Reenstierna alleging defamation and other torts. Reenstierna, a real estate appraiser, was brought before the New Hampshire Real Estate Appraisal Board for a disciplinary hearing. During the hearing, the Board considered as evidence a report on Reenstierna’s work written by Currier at the Board’s request. Reenstierna later filed suit against Currier alleging that Currier knowingly and purposely submitted a false report to the Board and that the purported deficiencies cited against Reenstierna in Currier’s report constituted material misrepresentations of fact. The district court concluded that New Hampshire’s absolute witness immunity doctrine precluded the use of Currier’s report to establish liability on Reenstierna’s claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Currier’s statements in his reported were shielded in this action by New Hampshire’s absolute witness immunity doctrine as set forth in Provencher v. Buzzell-Plourde Associates, 711 A.2d 251, 255 (N.H. 1998). View "Reenstierna v. Currier" on Justia Law