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

Jayne Carbone was convicted of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from her elderly uncle, Wayne Kerr, who suffered from Parkinson's disease and cancer. Carbone had access to Kerr's finances as his personal assistant and used this access to transfer funds from his accounts to herself. She was found guilty on all counts after a five-day jury trial in October 2021.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Carbone's motions to continue the testimonies of two key government witnesses, including Kerr, whose deposition was taken before trial due to his declining health. Carbone argued that the short notice for the deposition did not give her counsel adequate time to prepare. The court also admitted the testimonies of these witnesses over Carbone's objections.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and found Carbone's claims meritless. The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance motions or in admitting the testimonies. The appellate court noted that Carbone failed to demonstrate specific, concrete ways in which the denial of the continuance resulted in substantial prejudice to her defense. The court also found that the District Court did not err in admitting Kerr's deposition testimony without a competency hearing, as the evidence showed Kerr was competent at the time of his deposition. Additionally, the court ruled that the government's late disclosure of witness Christine Brown's testimony was reasonable under the circumstances and that her testimony was specially relevant to establish Carbone's motive for the theft. The appellate court affirmed Carbone's convictions. View "United States v. Carbone" on Justia Law

The case involves BioPoint, Inc., a life sciences consulting firm, which accused Catapult Staffing, LLC, and Andrew Dickhaut of misappropriating trade secrets, confidential business information, and engaging in unfair trade practices. BioPoint alleged that Catapult, with the help of Dickhaut and Leah Attis (a former BioPoint employee and Dickhaut's fiancée), used BioPoint's proprietary information to recruit candidates and secure business from BioPoint's clients, including Vedanta and Shire/Takeda.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts handled the initial proceedings. The jury found Catapult liable for misappropriating BioPoint's trade secrets concerning three candidates and two clients, and for tortious interference with BioPoint's business relationship with one candidate. The jury awarded BioPoint $312,000 in lost profits. The judge, in a subsequent bench trial, found Catapult liable for unjust enrichment and violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law (chapter 93A), awarding BioPoint $5,061,444 in damages, which included treble damages for willful and knowing conduct, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court largely affirmed the lower court's findings but reduced the judge's award by $157,068, as it found that BioPoint could not recover both lost profits and unjust enrichment for the same placement. The court also reversed the district court's imposition of joint-and-several liability on Andrew Dickhaut, ruling that he could not be held liable for profits he did not receive. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine Dickhaut's individual liability. View "BioPoint, Inc. v. Dickhaut" on Justia Law

Michel D'Angelo, also known as Karma, appealed the denial of his motion for compassionate release. D'Angelo had been convicted of robbing Kennebunk Savings Bank in Berwick, Maine, in 2012. Disguised and armed with a screwdriver, he threatened to detonate a bomb if the teller set off the alarm, stealing $1,298. His girlfriend, Jennica, assisted by making false 911 calls. D'Angelo pleaded guilty to bank robbery in 2014 and was sentenced to 180 months in prison, designated as a "career offender" due to his extensive criminal history and mental health issues.The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine sentenced D'Angelo, considering his criminal history and mental health problems. His sentence was affirmed on appeal, and subsequent motions, including a motion to vacate his sentence, were denied. D'Angelo later filed for compassionate release, arguing that his sentence would be lower if recalculated under the Supreme Court's decision in Borden v. United States, which affected the classification of his prior offenses. He also cited his mental health issues and poor medical treatment in prison as extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. The district court denied his motion, emphasizing his potential dangerousness and the need to protect the public.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion based on the § 3553(a) factors. The appellate court found that the district court properly considered D'Angelo's criminal history, offense conduct, and potential danger to the community. The court also noted that the district court had acknowledged D'Angelo's revised Guidelines range but found that the § 3553(a) factors did not favor reducing his sentence. View "United States v. D'Angelo" on Justia Law

D'Pergo Custom Guitars, Inc. sued Sweetwater Sound, Inc. for using a photo of D'Pergo's guitar necks on Sweetwater's website. D'Pergo claimed copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, and a violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The district court granted summary judgment to Sweetwater on the trademark claim and to D'Pergo on the copyright claim. A bench trial found in favor of Sweetwater on the CPA claim, and a jury awarded D'Pergo approximately $75,000 in compensatory damages for the copyright claim but did not award any of Sweetwater's profits.D'Pergo appealed the district court's summary judgment on the trademark claim and the bench trial ruling on the CPA claim. D'Pergo also argued that erroneous jury instructions warranted a reversal of the jury's finding that it was not entitled to recover any of Sweetwater's profits. Sweetwater cross-appealed, challenging the copyright damages based on what it claimed was inadmissible expert testimony.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in favor of Sweetwater on the CPA claim, finding that Sweetwater did not act with the intent required for a CPA violation. However, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Sweetwater on the trademark claim, concluding that D'Pergo's evidence created a genuine issue of fact regarding the trademark's secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion.The court also remanded for a new jury trial on the issue of infringing profits for the copyright claim, finding that the district court's jury instruction on the burden of proof for infringing profits overstated D'Pergo's burden. The court affirmed the district court's refusal to give D'Pergo's proposed "commingling" instruction and upheld the actual damages awarded to D'Pergo, rejecting Sweetwater's challenge to the admissibility of the expert testimony. View "D'Pergo Custom Guitars, Inc. v. Sweetwater Sound, Inc." on Justia Law

An Indonesian national, Jani, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge's (IJ) order that found him ineligible for asylum due to his past provision of material support to a foreign terrorist organization. Jani argued that the agency violated his constitutional due process rights and its own regulations in making this determination.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against Jani in 2003 for overstaying his visa. Jani conceded removability but applied for asylum, claiming persecution as an ethnically Chinese Indonesian. During his asylum application process, Jani admitted to joining Jemaah Islamiya, a terrorist organization, and identifying targets for extortion. The IJ initially granted Jani derivative asylum status based on his wife's successful asylum claim. However, DHS appealed, arguing Jani's ineligibility due to his terrorist affiliations. The BIA remanded the case for further proceedings due to an incomplete transcript of the initial hearing. Subsequent hearings reaffirmed Jani's admissions, leading the IJ to deny asylum and order his removal. The BIA dismissed Jani's appeal, supporting the IJ's findings and rejecting Jani's procedural claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no due process violation in the IJ and BIA's reliance on the defective 2006 hearing transcript, noting that Jani had ample opportunity to present his case and that the transcript was used appropriately for impeachment. The court also rejected Jani's claim that his derivative asylum status was final, noting that DHS had properly reserved its right to appeal his claim, making the IJ's decision non-final. Consequently, the court denied Jani's petition for review. View "Jani v. Garland" on Justia Law

Michele Tourangeau filed a complaint against her former employer, Nappi Distributors, alleging nine employment-related claims. Nappi moved for summary judgment on all claims, but the District Court denied the motion for all but one claim, leading to a jury trial. The jury found in favor of Nappi on all claims. Tourangeau then filed a motion for a new trial, citing juror bias and errors in jury instructions, which the District Court denied.Tourangeau appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. She argued that the District Court erred in not disqualifying a juror who allegedly displayed bias and failed to answer voir dire questions truthfully. The District Court had previously determined that the juror's conduct and Facebook activity did not demonstrate bias sufficient to warrant disqualification. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the District Court's handling of the juror bias allegations, noting that the District Court had appropriately assessed the juror's behavior and responses.Tourangeau also challenged the jury's verdict on one of her Equal Pay Act (EPA) claims, arguing that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence and that the District Court erred in not giving a specific jury instruction. The appellate court upheld the District Court's decision, finding that Nappi had provided sufficient evidence that the pay differential was based on a business decision unrelated to sex. The court also agreed with the District Court's refusal to give the requested jury instruction, as there was no evidence of a prior illegal practice of gender discrimination in hiring.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, concluding that there was no reversible error in the handling of the juror bias allegations or the EPA claim. View "Tourangeau v. Nappi Distributors" on Justia Law

Southbridge RE, LLC (Southbridge) executed promissory notes and secured mortgages for two properties in Massachusetts with LendingHome, which later assigned the mortgages to Christiana Trust. However, LendingHome had previously issued blank assignments of the same mortgages to Toorak Capital Partners as security for a private funding agreement. Toorak filled in its name and recorded the assignments after Southbridge defaulted on the mortgages. Christiana Trust conducted foreclosure sales on both properties, which Southbridge contested, arguing that the blank assignments to Toorak broke the chain of title, rendering the foreclosures invalid.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that the blank assignments to Toorak were void under Massachusetts law and granted summary judgment in favor of Christiana Trust, declaring it had the authority to conduct the foreclosure sales. The court denied Southbridge's motion for summary judgment and defendants' cross-claims for slander of title, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. Southbridge appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that under Massachusetts law, assignments in blank are void and convey no interest. The court found that Toorak's filling in its name on the blank assignments did not validate them, as Toorak lacked authorization from LendingHome. The court also determined that post-foreclosure affidavits confirming the invalidity of the Toorak assignments were proper and did not contravene state law. Additionally, the court ruled that the foreclosure sale notices did not need to reference the void Toorak assignments, as they were not part of the chain of title. Thus, the foreclosure sales conducted by Christiana Trust were valid. View "Southbridge RE, LLC v. Kiavi Funding, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The Sentencing Guidelines recommended a sentence of 15 to 21 months for the drug charge and a consecutive 60 months for the firearm charge. However, the district court imposed an upward variance, sentencing the defendant to 96 months for the firearm charge and 18 months for the drug charge, totaling 114 months in prison. The court justified the upward variance by citing the quantity of ammunition and magazines the defendant possessed and the need for deterrence.The case was initially reviewed by the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The defendant pled guilty to the charges of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime and possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The district court dismissed the charges of possessing a machinegun and heroin by agreement. The district court then sentenced the defendant to a total of 114 months in prison, which was 33 months above the high end of the guideline range, citing the additional contraband and the need for deterrence due to Puerto Rico's high rate of firearm offenses and murders.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The defendant argued that the upward variance was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the district court provided sufficient reasons for the upward variance. The court noted that the additional contraband and the need for deterrence were valid factors for the upward variance. The court concluded that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable and upheld the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Rosario-Merced" on Justia Law

The case involves Puerto Rico's attempt to enact Law 29, which aimed to relieve municipalities from contributing to the Commonwealth's reformed public pension funding scheme. The Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the Board) challenged the law, and the Title III court overseeing Puerto Rico's debt restructuring declared Law 29 a nullity and of no effect. This decision was not appealed. La Liga de Ciudades de Puerto Rico (La Liga) argued that the Title III court's order did not authorize the Board to recover funds retained by municipalities under Law 29 before the order took effect.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, interpreting its own prior order, granted motions to dismiss filed by the Board and other defendants. The court dismissed some claims on the merits and others for lack of standing. The court held that the Title III court's order applied retroactively, nullifying Law 29 from its inception and allowing the Board to recover the funds.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of La Liga's complaint. It held that the Title III court's order declaring Law 29 a nullity and of no effect applied retroactively, covering the period from the law's enactment. The court found that the Title III court had the authority under PROMESA to nullify Law 29 from its inception and that the Board's actions to recover the funds were justified. The court also addressed standing issues, affirming that La Liga had standing to sue the Board and CRIM but not the executive branch defendants. View "La Liga de Ciudades de P.R. v. Financial Oversight and Management Board" on Justia Law

In the early morning of January 9, 2021, Alex Manuel López-Felicie and two accomplices broke into a closed pharmacy, stole an ATM containing approximately $21,580, and fled in a pickup truck. They were pursued by police officers in an unmarked car, leading to a shootout in a residential area. López was shot in the leg and later arrested. A firearm covered in López's blood was found nearby, although López denied firing a gun.López was indicted on one federal charge of bank larceny under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b). He pled guilty, and the parties agreed on a guideline range of 12 to 18 months in prison, based on a total offense level of 13 and a criminal history category of I. Both the government and López recommended a sentence within this range. However, the district court sentenced López to 60 months, citing the seriousness of the offense and the substantial risk of harm caused by the discharge of firearms during the flight.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. López argued that the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable, claiming the district court did not sufficiently justify the upward variance and that the record did not support findings that he possessed or fired a weapon. The appellate court found no procedural or substantive error, noting that the district court had adequately explained its decision, considered the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and made reasonable factual findings. The court affirmed the 60-month sentence, concluding that the district court's decision was justified given the circumstances of the case. View "US v. Lopez-Felicie" on Justia Law