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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, healthcare fraud, and money laundering. Defendant appealed, alleging trial error. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) failing to sua sponte give a limiting instruction as to testimony by Defendant’s associate that the associate had pled guilty to one count of healthcare fraud arising from the same scheme; (2) permitting witness testimony about Medicare regulations; and (3) denying Defendant’s preferred jury instruction as to the meaning of a particular certification requirement in the relevant Medicare provisions. View "United States v. Galatis" on Justia Law

After James Walsh’s (Plaintiff) employment with Zurich American Insurance Company (Defendant) was terminated, he filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging breach of contract, willful violation of New Hampshire’s wage and hour law, and other claims based on Defendant’s substantial reduction of his incentive pay for a lucrative deal and failure to pay incentive on another deal. A jury found that Defendant willfully and without good cause withheld the compensation owed to Plaintiff and awarded him double damages and attorney’s fees. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment insofar as it incorporated the jury’s verdict on one deal (the Great American Insurance Company, or GAIC, deal) and affirmed the judgment with respect to the other deal (the Automobile Protection Corp., or APCO, deal), holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract and wage claims; (2) the jury’s breach and willfulness findings stemming from Defendant’s withholding of incentive compensation for a deal made with GAIC were not in error; but (3) the district court erred in concluding that, if Plaintiff had an enforceable incentive plan when the deal was struck with APCO, Defendant lacked discretion as a matter of law to change Plaintiff’s incentive formula for that deal. Remanded. View "Walsh v. Zurich American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Defendant to an upwardly variant sentence of seventy-two months’ imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Defendant challenged his sentence on appeal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no plain error in the district court’s finding that at least one of Defendant’s prior convictions was for a “crime of violence,” and therefore, Defendant’s guidelines sentence range was properly calculated; (2) Defendant’s sentence was procedurally reasonable; and (3) Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Delgado-Sanchez" on Justia Law

After she was charged with removability, Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. An immigration judge (IJ) rejected Petitioner’s application for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the IJ’s denial and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the BIA reopen and reconsider her appeal, contending that the BIA committed three legal errors. The BIA denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen and reconsider. The First Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Petitioner’s motion. View "Cortez Cardona v. Yates" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute heroin. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment of sixty-six months. Defendant appealed, raising several allegations of error. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in its pretrial rulings; (2) the district court did not err in its rulings made during trial; and (3) Defendant’s challenge to his sentence failed because the district court’s findings justified its determination that Defendant was responsible for conspiring to distribute between 400 and 700 grams of heroin. View "United States v. Arias" on Justia Law

In May 1990, Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, committed a felony under California law. At that time, the immigration laws allowed the Attorney General of the United States, if so inclined, to grant Petitioner a waiver from the full effect of his criminal conduct. In December 1990, Petitioner was convicted. In November 1990, the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT) took effect. IMMACT divested the Attorney General of the discretion to grant such a waiver to any person who served five or more years of incarceration for an aggravated felony. In 2014, after Petitioner was released from prison, he was charged with being removable. The Board of Immigration Appeals determined that, although Petitioner’s conduct predated IMMACT’s enactment, the fact that his conviction postdated IMMACT’s enactment controlled. The First Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that controlling precedent is in accord with the BIA’s decision, and therefore, the BIA did not apply IMMACT to Petitioner in an improperly retroactive manner. View "Holder v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to defraud the federal government. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice based on violations of the Speedy Trial Act, the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s decision on Defendant’s Sixth Amendment claim and remanded for reconsideration of that claim, holding that the district court was led astray by dicta in one of this Court’s prior opinions in calculating the length of delay relevant to evaluating the alleged Sixth Amendment violation. View "United States v. Irizarry-Colon" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to rob a postal worker, assault on a federal employee, and related offenses. The sentencing judge sentenced Defendant to 235 months in prison, plus ten years. Defendant appealed, raising several allegations of error. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction but remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration of Defendant’s sentence at a new sentencing hearing, holding (1) the district court applied an erroneously-inflated Guidelines range, which compromised the fairness and integrity of Defendant’s sentencing; and (2) the remainder of Defendant’s arguments on appeal were unavailing. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant’s plea agreement recommended a total offense level under the U.S. Sentencing guidelines of seventeen. Defendant objected to the recommended total offense level, arguing that it should instead be twelve under the Guidelines. Relying on an untranslated Spanish document, the district court concluded that Defendant’s total offense level was seventeen. The district court proceeded to sentence Defendant to forty-six months’ imprisonment even though the Guidelines’ recommended sentence was twenty-seven to thirty-three months in prison. The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court erred in relying on an untranslated document in calculating Defendant’s offense level. View "United States v. Roman-Huertas" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy, willful violation of the Investment Advisers Act, wire fraud, and corruptly impeding the administration of internal revenue laws. Defendant was sentenced to eighty-four months in prison, a below-guidelines sentence. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court’s reasonable doubt instructions were deficient and claiming sentencing error. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence, holding (1) Defendant’s claims of instructional error ultimately failed; and (2) the district court’s decision refusing to grant a downward departure on two alternative bases was reasonable. View "United States v. Herman" on Justia Law