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

After the share price of a corporation’s common stock dropped, investors filed suit against the corporation and its former CEO, alleging securities fraud. The lead plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a putative class of shareholders, alleged that Defendants inflated the value of the corporation’s common stock by issuing false or materially misleading press releases concerning the approval of human clinical trials for a new medical device the company was developing. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to allege false or misleading statements sufficient to state a claim and that Plaintiff’s control person claim against the CEO was also properly dismissed. View "Ganem v. InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and three specific-offense counts of distribution of that controlled substance. Appellant was sentenced to an eighteen-year term of immurement to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release. After Appellant began serving his supervised release term, he was charged in a Massachusetts state court with attempted murder and assault with a dangerous weapon. A federal district court subsequently found that Appellant had violated the conditions of his supervised release and sentenced Appellant to a four-year incarcerate term. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s challenges to the evidentiary rulings made in the course of the revocation of his supervised release were unavailing; and (2) Appellant’s claim of sentencing error was baseless. View "United States v. Fontanez" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of committing a Hobbs Act robbery. The court sentenced Appellant to a prison term of 120 months. Appellant appealed, arguing that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable - because the court relied on clearly erroneous facts - and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court committed clear error when it insisted without factual support that Appellant was more culpable for the commission of the robbery than his co-defendants, and therefore, the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because it was premised on factual findings that were not supported by any evidence in the record. View "United States v. Cotto-Negron" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of China, was charged with being removable. Petitioner filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all of Petitioner’s claims and ordered him removed from the United States, finding that Petitioner was not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) Petitioner’s asylum claim failed, and consequently, Petitioner’s withholding of removal claim necessarily failed as well; and (2) substantial evidence existed to support the BIA’s rejection of Petitioner’s CAT claim. View "Xian Jing v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery of a controlled substance from a pharmacy by use of a dangerous weapon. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement, the basis of which was a finding of obstruction of justice; (2) the district court provided sufficient support for finding that Defendant failed to establish that this was a case where an acceptance of responsibility reduction should be granted to a defendant who has obstructed the government’s efforts to prosecute him; and (3) the sentencing court gave the evidence of Defendant’s drug addiction the weight and effect that Defendant claimed it warranted; and (4) the duration of Defendant’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Stile" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Honduran nation, conceded removability after being charged for being present in the United States without legal sanction. Petitioner cross-applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing that he had a well-founded fear of persecution based on his experiences in Honduras. An immigration judge (IJ) denied relief and ordered his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding that the IJ’s and the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s claim for asylum must stand. View "Rivera-Coca v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Eight police officers, a police cadet, and a provisionally hired 911 operator (collectively, the Officers) alleged that they suffered adverse employment actions by the Boston Police Department as a result of a racially discriminatory hair drug test. The Officers advanced a “disparate impact claim” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court concluded that there was no actionable disparate impact. The first time on appeal, the First Circuit held that the Officers prevailed as a matter of law under the first prong of the three-prong disparate impact inquiry of that inquiry and remanded the case to the district court to consider the next two prongs. On remand, the district court again summary judgment for the Department. On appeal for the second time, the First Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Department on the third prong of the disparate impact inquiry, holding that a material dispute of fact existed preventing summary judgment on this matter. Remanded. View "Jones v. City of Boston" on Justia Law

Jamie Rogers, a seaman, was injured on a fishing vessel owned and operated by Block Island Fishing, Inc. Block Island made some “maintenance and cure” payments to Rogers. Block Island then brought this suit against Rogers to dispute the duration and amount of maintenance and cure payments that it owed. Block Island filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court found that November 18, 2014 was the date on which Block Island’s obligations ended and reserved for a jury to determine the exact sum that Block Island owed Rogers for his living expenses. The court then ruled that Block Island had overpaid Rogers and that Block Island could offset the sum of overpayment against any damages award that Rogers might win at trial. The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part, holding (1) the district court erred by sua sponte replacing Block Island’s proposed date of July 31, 2014 with its own date without giving Rogers sufficient notice of opportunity to make his case against the new date; and (2) Block Island may offset any overpayment against Rogers’ potential damages award but may not sue for the sum in an independent action. View "Block Island Fishing, Inc. v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Erasmo Rodriguez-Vazquez (Rodriguez) successfully worked to obtain the reversal of several wrongfully convicted individuals. Those individuals and/or their heirs or assigns brought two suits, consolidated into this case, against the police officers and prosecutors who were involved in their prosecutions. The parties reached a settlement. The district court issued a report that the parties and the district court have treated as a gag order barring the parties from disclosing the terms and conditions of the settlement. Rodriguez subsequently made statements about the settlement to the press. The district court held Rodriguez in contempt and referred him to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s Supreme Judicial Court for disciplinary review. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and vacated the contempt and sanctions order, holding that the district court’s contempt finding and sanction were based on clearly erroneous findings of fact because Rodriguez did not violate what the parties all treat as a confidentiality order issued by the district court. View "Rodriguez-Vazquez v. Solivan Solivan" on Justia Law

Brian Blackden, a freelance photographer who sends photos to several regional-media outlets, including Belsito Communications (Belsito), and Belsito filed suit alleging that James Decker, a New Hampshire State Trooper, violated their constitutional rights when he seized Blackden’s camera without a warrant at the scene of a vehicle crash. The trial judge concluded that even if Decker’s actions were unconstitutional under current law, he was entitled to qualified immunity from suit because constitutional standards as applied to a situation like this one were unclear at the time of the challenged conduct. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Blackden failed to identify clearly established law as of the time of the challenged conduct showing beyond debate that the police officer’s specific acts violated the First Amendment. View "Belsito Communications, Inc v. Decker" on Justia Law