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

In 2010, Appellant pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute between fifteen and fifty kilograms of cocaine. Consistent with the parties’ joint recommendation, the district court sentenced Appellant to 180 months’ imprisonment. In 2014, Appellant filed a motion to reduce his sentence, citing an April 2014 amendment to the sentencing guidelines that was given retroactive effect. The amendment reduced the base offense level for certain drug crimes by two levels. Five days after the amendment’s effective date, the Puerto Rico District Court issued an administrative directive under which all motions to reduce sentence based on the amendment are automatically referred to a magistrate judge for initial screening. In the instant case, the district judge sua sponte denied Appellant’s motion before the magistrate judge had the opportunity to make an eligibility determination. Appellant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court failed to apply its own administrative directive. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s orders denying Appellant’s motion to reduce sentence, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, remand to the district court for it to apply its administrative directive was the appropriate course. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Rosado" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The plea agreement included a provision titled “Waiver of Appeal.” The district court accepted Defendant’s plea and sentenced him to 132 months in prison. Defendant appealed, challenging the reasonableness of his sentence. With regard to the waiver provision Defendant argued that the provision did not apply to this appeal and, alternatively, that enforcing it “would work a miscarriage of justice.” The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that Defendant’s waiver was both valid and enforceable and, therefore, the Court’s consideration of this appeal on the merits was barred. View "United States v. Morales-Arroyo" on Justia Law

Regulations promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service require that commercial fishermen must, on occasion, be accompanied on their vessels by at-sea monitors to ensure accountability with respect to catch limits. The regulations require that the fishermen bear the costs of the at-sea monitors. Plaintiff, a New Hampshire fisherman subject to the industry funding requirement for the at-sea monitoring program, brought suit in federal district court claiming that the industry funding requirement violated several laws and was unconstitutional. Plaintiff was joined in the proceedings by a group of commercial fishermen also subject to the industry funding requirement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, concluding that the action was untimely filed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s suit was not filed within the applicable statute of limitations. View "Goethel v. U.S. Department of Commerce" on Justia Law

Lisa Tam Chung, a Texas high school senior, purchased a vacation package through StudentCity.com for a trip to Cancun, Mexico, adding an optional snorkeling excursion. The snorkeling trip ended with the vessel taking on water and Lisa being pulled under the water. Lisa died as a result of her injuries. Lisa, through her parents, brought a wrongful death claim against StudentCity. During discovery, the district court, with the acquiescence of the parties, limited pretrial discovery to specific issues. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of StudentCity. The First Circuit reversed, holding that because the district court entered summary judgment on an issue not briefed and on which discovery had not been allowed, the district court’s shift in focus exceeded its authority. Remanded. View "Chung v. StudentCity.com, Inc." on Justia Law

The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) requires mandatory sentences for recidivist criminals with three or more convictions for crimes committed on different occasions that qualify as predicate offenses. Defendant pled guilty to possessing ammunition as a felon. In addition to two ACCA-qualifying Maine burglary convictions, Defendant had on his record a 2001 Maine robbery conviction and a 2004 Maine drug-trafficking conviction. The district judge applied an ACCA enhancement and sentenced Defendant to the statutory minimum of fifteen years in jail. The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that neither Defendant’s robbery conviction nor his drug-trafficking conviction qualified as an ACCA predicate. Remanded for resentencing without the ACCA enhancement. View "United States v. Mulkern" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. The district court imposed a total prison sentence of forty-six months, at the lower end of the United States Sentencing Guidelines imprisonment range. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court’s application of a two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err by applying the two-level enhancement for the possession of a dangerous weapon, and therefore, Defendant’s guideline sentencing range was properly calculated; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute. The district court imposed a total prison sentence of 120 months months and five years’ supervised release. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court committed procedural and substantive errors in calculating his sentence for the firearms count. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that the district court erred either substantively or procedurally. View "United States v. Millan-Roman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants, her former employer and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, alleging that Defendants violated her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), discriminated against her on the basis of a covered impairment, illegally required her to participate in prohibited political activity, and wrongfully terminated her with actual malice. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff appealed the portion of the district court’s order dismissing certain FMLA claims against her former employer under Rule 12(b)(6). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the facts pleaded in Plaintiff’s complaint did not plausibly allege that her supervisor fired her because she sought leave protected by the FMLA. View "Germanowski v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (the Tribe) decided to pursue gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) on its trust lands in Dukes County, Massachusetts (the Settlement Lands). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Town of Aquinnah, and the Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association (collectively, Appellees) argued that any gaming on the Settlement Lands should be subject to state, rather than federal, laws and regulations. The district court granted summary judgment for Appellees, ruling that the Settlement Lands were not covered by IGRA and hence were subject to the Commonwealth’s gaming regulations. The court found that the Tribe had failed to exercise sufficient governmental power over those lands, as required for IGRA to apply, and even if the Tribe had exercised sufficient governmental power the Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc., Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1987 (the Federal Act), which provides that the Settlement Lands are subject to state laws and regulations, governed. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) IGRA applies to the Settlement Lands; and (2) the Federal Act has been impliedly repealed by IGRA in relevant part. View "Commonwealth v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head" on Justia Law

Zafgen Inc.’s investors (Investors) brought a securities fraud class action suit against Zafgen and its Chief Executive Officer (collectively, Defendants) following a significant drop in the share price of the company. Specifically, Investors alleged that the Defendants made several misleading statements regarding Zafgen’s anti-obesity drug Beloranib. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that the complaint did not contain facts giving rise to a “cogent and compelling” inference of scienter as required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed Investors’ claims because the complaint, considered as a whole, did not present allegations giving rise to a cogent and compelling inference of scienter. View "Brennan v. Zafgen, Inc." on Justia Law