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

The case involves Maximiliano Fígaro-Benjamín, a co-conspirator in a multi-defendant drug conspiracy case. Fígaro-Benjamín was part of a crew that transported cocaine between Puerto Rico and St. Thomas on a vessel named the Black Wolfpack. The crew was intercepted by federal agents in January 2018. Fígaro-Benjamín was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and conspiracy to import controlled substances into the U.S. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 292 months in prison.Fígaro-Benjamín appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court relied on unreliable evidence at sentencing and incorrectly calculated his sentence. He also claimed that the court did not adequately explain its sentence. His arguments were based on the testimony of a co-conspirator, José Javier Resto Miranda, who testified at the trial of Fígaro-Benjamín's co-defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Fígaro-Benjamín's arguments did not hold up. It ruled that the sentencing court did not err in considering Resto's testimony, which was reliable and corroborated by other evidence. The court also found that the sentencing court correctly calculated Fígaro-Benjamín's guidelines sentencing range and did not err in finding that he was a supervisor in the trafficking operation. Lastly, the court found that the sentencing court adequately explained its sentence. View "US v. Figaro-Benjamin" on Justia Law

The case involves Joel Dudley, who was appealing the 2023 revocation of his supervised release and his sentence of two terms of two years of incarceration, to be served consecutively, followed by supervised release for life. The revocation was the second one from his prior convictions in 2014 for possession of child pornography and making a false declaration before the court. The revocation was based on the district court's finding that he had violated five conditions of his supervised release, including by sharing images of himself sexually abusing his daughter when she was approximately four years old and engaging in sexual contact with, exchanging sexually explicit messages with, and receiving and possessing pornographic video of his daughter when she was seventeen years old.Previously, Dudley had been found guilty on both counts at two separate jury trials. His supervised release was first revoked in 2019 after he violated the conditions of his release by failing to update his sex offender registration and having other individuals access the internet on his behalf. His supervised release was again revoked in 2020 after he had unapproved contact with his daughter, exchanged sexually explicit messages with her, and used an unreported cell phone number and Facebook account under a false name.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the district court judge did not err or abuse his discretion in revoking Dudley's supervised release and that Dudley's sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court affirmed the decision of the lower court. View "United States v. Dudley" on Justia Law

The case involves Hassan Abbas, who was convicted on several counts of wire fraud and money laundering. Abbas was found guilty of participating in an email-based fraud scheme that targeted citizens of Massachusetts. He appealed his conviction on several grounds, including the appropriateness of Massachusetts as the venue for his trial.In the lower courts, Abbas challenged the venue for his trial, arguing that the wire fraud and money laundering activities did not occur in Massachusetts. The district court denied his motion, determining that the issue of when the wired funds became "proceeds" was not capable of resolution before the trial.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed Abbas's convictions for wire fraud but vacated his convictions for money laundering. The court found that the money sent from the victims did not become "proceeds" until it reached Abbas's bank accounts in Illinois and California. Therefore, Abbas did not "participate in the transfer of proceeds" from Massachusetts, making Massachusetts an improper venue for the money laundering charges. The court remanded the case for resentencing and recalculation of restitution. View "US v. Abbas" on Justia Law

The defendant, Antonio Santonastaso, was convicted of making a false statement to federal investigators and attempted witness tampering. The charges stemmed from a 2018 investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) into allegations that Santonastaso was flying a helicopter without the necessary certifications. During the investigation, Santonastaso falsely claimed that he had the requisite certifications to fly and that his previous involvement in a 2000 helicopter theft was part of an undercover operation.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where Santonastaso was found guilty. He appealed the decision, arguing that the government's evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt and that the district court erred by not giving a materiality instruction based on the Supreme Court's decision in Maslenjak v. United States.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Santonastaso guilty of making a false statement to federal investigators and attempted witness tampering. The court also ruled that the district court did not commit instructional error in rejecting Santonastaso's proposed materiality instruction. The court held that the law-of-the-circuit doctrine foreclosed the application of the Maslenjak materiality standard to § 1001(a) prosecutions, and that the district court's instruction correctly stated the controlling law on materiality. View "United States v. Santonastaso" on Justia Law

The case involves Reynaldo Rosa-Borges, who was sentenced to 72 months for unlawful firearm possession and 36 months for violating the terms of his supervised release from a previous conviction. The firearm and ammunition were discovered during two separate incidents. The first incident occurred when Rosa-Borges was found with a firearm during a police patrol at a beach. The second incident happened the following day when police searched Rosa-Borges' residence and found additional ammunition. Rosa-Borges' brother, Naim, claimed that the ammunition belonged to Rosa-Borges.In the lower courts, Rosa-Borges pleaded guilty to the charges. However, he disputed the claim that he possessed the additional 100 rounds of ammunition found at his residence, arguing that the information was derived from unreliable hearsay from his brother, who had a motive to avoid his own criminal liability. Despite these objections, the district court sentenced Rosa-Borges to a total of 108 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated and remanded the case for resentencing. The appellate court found that the district court had relied on unreliable hearsay evidence from Rosa-Borges' brother to extend Rosa-Borges' sentence. The court concluded that the brother's statement was self-serving and inconsistent with the government's version of events, and therefore, it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to find the statement reliable. The court did not address Rosa-Borges' argument that his limited confrontation right under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) was violated. View "United States v. Rosa-Borges" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the construction of an offshore wind project aimed at reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The project, proposed by Vineyard Wind 1, LLC, was expected to provide energy sufficient to power 400,000 Massachusetts homes. However, residents of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket opposed the project, arguing that federal agencies failed to properly assess the potential impact of the project on the endangered North Atlantic right whale.Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had granted summary judgment in favor of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Vineyard Wind, rejecting the residents' challenge to a biological opinion issued by the NMFS and relied on by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in permitting the construction of the wind power project.In the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the residents challenged the lower court's decision, arguing that the NMFS's determination that the incidental harassment of up to twenty right whales constituted a "small number" under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. They also argued that NMFS's consideration of the "specified activity" and the "specific geographic region" within which that activity would occur for purposes of issuing the Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to Vineyard Wind was impermissibly narrow in scope.The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the NMFS's determination was not arbitrary or capricious and that it had properly delineated the "specific geographic region" for the purposes of the IHA. The court also found that the residents' concerns about the broader effect of the project on the right whale population were unwarranted, as the agency had considered the impact on the entire right whale population in its "negligible impact" analysis, its biological opinion, and in its participation in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's Environmental Impact Statement. View "Melone v. Coit" on Justia Law

Lashaun Casey was sentenced to life imprisonment after being found guilty by a jury of carjacking and murdering an undercover police officer. Casey sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his trial attorney failed to seek exclusion of inculpatory statements he made during a period of improper delay in bringing him before a magistrate judge following his arrest and detention. The district court rejected this claim, concluding that while a delay occurred, it was reasonable and necessary for legitimate law enforcement purposes.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit disagreed with the district court's conclusion that Casey's presentment was justifiably delayed. However, the court agreed with Casey that admission at trial of one of the two contested sets of statements was improper. Despite this, the court concluded that Casey had not demonstrated that his trial counsel's failure to press that error constituted ineffective assistance of counsel because his showing of prejudice fell short of the Sixth Amendment standard. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment denying the writ of habeas corpus. View "Casey v. US" on Justia Law

A group of Nantucket residents, organized as Nantucket Residents Against Turbines, challenged the approval of the Vineyard Wind project by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The project involves the construction of a wind power facility off the coast of Massachusetts. The residents alleged that the federal agencies violated the Endangered Species Act by concluding that the project's construction would not jeopardize the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. They also claimed that BOEM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by relying on a flawed analysis by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which granted summary judgment in favor of the federal agencies. The court found that NMFS and BOEM had followed the law in analyzing the right whale's current status and environmental baseline, the likely effects of the Vineyard Wind project on the right whale, and the efficacy of measures to mitigate those effects. The court also found that the agencies' analyses rationally supported their conclusion that Vineyard Wind would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The appellate court found that the lower court had correctly interpreted the law and that the federal agencies had not violated the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. The court concluded that the agencies' analyses were rational and that their conclusion that the Vineyard Wind project would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale was supported by the evidence. View "Nantucket Residents Against Turbines v. U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2020, amid pandemic mask mandates and nationwide racial justice protests, Whole Foods Market, Inc. began disciplining employees who wore facemasks to work supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, citing its dress code. The three plaintiff-appellants, Savannah Kinzer, Haley Evans, and Christopher Michno, persisted in wearing these masks, among taking other actions, until the company terminated them, ostensibly for repeated violations of the dress code or attendance policy. The Employees sued under Title VII, alleging retaliation. The district court granted Whole Foods' motion for summary judgment against all three.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that summary judgment was improper against one of the Employees, Savannah Kinzer, an outspoken critic of Whole Foods whose termination arguably deviated from the company's disciplinary process, but affirmed the court's holding as to both Haley Evans and Christopher Michno. The Employees also asked the court to review a discovery order compelling the production of communications whose confidentiality they argue is protected by the National Labor Relations Act. The court declined to reach the merits of that issue. View "Kinzer v. Whole Foods Market, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Jennifer Root Bannon, who sued six law enforcement officers and the City of Boston on behalf of her brother's estate. Her brother, Juston Root, was fatally shot by the officers after a series of events that began with him pointing a gun at a hospital security guard and a responding police officer, leading the officers on a high-speed chase, and disregarding police instructions to drop his weapon. Bannon claimed that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances during the fatal shooting and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and affirmed the grant of summary judgment on Bannon's other claims. The court found that no reasonable jury could conclude that the officers acted unreasonably in employing deadly force against Root in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court also independently concluded that the officers were entitled to summary judgment on Bannon's § 1983 and MCRA claims based on qualified immunity. View "Bannon v. Godin" on Justia Law