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

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders denying Defendant’s motion to suppress wiretap evidence and denying Defendant’s two requests for evidentiary hearings in connection with the motion to suppress. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress and his related requests for evidentiary hearings. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the wiretap orders were not so lacking in particularity as to demand suppression, the wiretap applications were more than minimally adequate to justify the wiretap orders, and suppression was not required due to minimization deficiencies; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold either a general evidentiary hearing or a Franks hearing. View "United States v. Gordon" on Justia Law

Here the federal government attempted to use the Hobbs Act to police the activities of members of a labor union. Defendants, two union members, were convicted of, inter alia, extortion under the Hobbs Act. The government charged that Defendants extorted property from nonunion companies when they threatened to take certain actions, such as picketing, if those companies did not give union members jobs and that Defendants extorted wages, benefits, and rights to democratic participation within the union from their fellow union members. The First Circuit (1) sustained the convictions of both defendants on count 29 under 29 U.S.C. 504(a), holding that the evidence was sufficient to support these convictions; (2) vacated the conviction for extortion of a nonunion company because the jury instructions allowed the jury to convict upon a finding that the work performed was merely unwanted; and (3) reversed all other convictions due to various errors and insufficiency of the evidence. View "United States v. Burhoe" on Justia Law

On July 5, 2014, the First Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court’s decision to grant Petitioner’s motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. One week later, Respondent informed the court that Petitioner had died before the opinion issued and filed a motion for the withdrawal of the July 5, 2017 opinion. The First Circuit chose to exercise its discretion to grant Respondent’s motion for withdrawal of the July 5, 2017 because the case is now moot in light of Petitioner’s death. Thus, the opinion issued on July 5, 2017 is withdrawn and the judgment vacated as moot. The court remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the habeas petition. View "United States v. Bennett" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment convicting Defendant, after a jury trial, of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute oxycodone and oxymorphone. On appeal, the court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) Defendant waived his claim that the district court committed plain error in its response to a particular question from the jury; and (3) the district court did not err in imposing a sentencing enhancement for the use or attempted use of a minor in the commission of the offense. View "United States v. Corbett" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court in connection with Defendant’s convictions of securities fraud, investment adviser fraud, wire fraud, and mail fraud. On appeal, Defendant challenged her sentence on both procedural and substantive grounds. The First Circuit held (1) the district court’s imposition of a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement and a two-level vulnerable victim enhancement was not an abuse of discretion; and (2) under the undisputed facts of this case, the length of Defendant’s bottom-of-the-guidelines sentence fell well within the possibilities of reasonable sentences. View "United States v. O'Brien" on Justia Law

In 2007, Vogel loaned Catala, $8,500 during a trip to Las Vegas. When Catala did not repay the loan, Vogel sued him in a Rhode Island state court. In 2012, a state judge entered a judgment for $8,500, plus interest and costs. Efforts to collect the judgment proved fruitless. In 2016, federal authorities charged Catal with distributing oxycodone and marijuana, searched his home, and seized $14,792 in cash. The case was docketed in the District of Rhode Island. Catala pleaded guilty. The court determined that the cash represented the proceeds of the illegal drug dealings and was subject to forfeiture, 21 U.S.C. 853(a). Vogel filed a third-party petition, asserting a claim to the seized cash under 21 U.S.C. 853(n) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c). The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claim, ruling that Vogel had no legal right to the forfeited proceeds. As a matter of first impression, the court concluded that the government had priority. There is no suggestion that the forfeited cash came from any source other than the defendant's drug-trafficking activities, so the government's interest in the forfeited cash vested as soon as Catala began selling drugs and before any proceeds started to reach him. View "United States v. Vogel" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's prior conviction for robbery under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 3701(a)(1)(iv) fell within the career offender guideline's residual clause in the 2015 Guidelines Manual. In this case, the Pennsylvania conviction qualified as a crime of violence because it involved conduct that presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to another and it substantially corresponded to the definition of generic robbery. View "United States v. Ball" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed defendant's 27 month sentence, which included three years of supervised release with a six-month 6:00 PM curfew enforced by electronic monitoring. The court held that the curfew was sufficiently connected to the underlying crime, the need to protect the public, and the need for deterrence. Because the curfew was appropriate, defendant's objection to the electronic monitoring requirement failed. The court also held that defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court addressed every step required, including considering the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Furthermore, the sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Quinones-Otero" on Justia Law

In this action seeking to, among other things, quiet title to certain property, the district court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of Defendants.After he was informed that his loan secured by a mortgage on his Massachusetts property was in default, Plaintiff sued Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and US Bank, N.A. (collectively, Defendants), seeking unclouded title to the property, an injunction against foreclosure, and damages. The district court granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed all counts of Plaintiff’s complaint. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendants were entitled to judgment on the pleadings because Defendant failed to plead any set of facts that would entitle him to relief. View "Rezende v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s lawsuit challenging the revocation of his attorney’s license, holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred his suit.After the Rhode Island Supreme Court suspended Plaintiff from practicing law for one year, Plaintiff filed this federal suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against nearly two dozen judicial officers and administrators who had participated in his disciplinary proceedings, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under both the Rhode Island and the United States Constitutions. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss primarily on the grounds that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divested the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly ruled that Plaintiff’s suit was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. View "McKenna v. Curtin" on Justia Law