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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for possession of firearms by a felon and his thirty-month sentence, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant challenged the procedural reasonableness of his sentence, asserting that the district court relied upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact regarding his use of a firearm on a previous occasion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the sentencing court did not clearly err in its factual findings and in crediting the account of a witness of the incident at issue over Defendant's own account. View "United States v. Lilly" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed in part and denied in part Petitioner's petition for judicial review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) ordering Petitioner's removal, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction in part and that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error.Petitioner, a Jordanian national, was granted status as a conditional permanent resident of the United States due to his marriage to a citizen, but an IJ later ordered his removal due to his inability to prove that he entered the marriage in good faith. The BIA affirmed. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition for judicial review. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) this Court lacked jurisdiction to review the agency's factual findings; and (2) Petitioner's remaining challenges to the BIA's decisions were unavailing. View "Alzaben v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal did not meet the exacting plain error standard.Defendant pleaded guilty to using a firearm during a carjacking, a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court imposed a sentence of 108 months in prison, twenty-four months longer that the Guidelines recommendation, and a special condition upon his release requiring him to receive psychotherapy services. On appeal, Defendant argued for the first time that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable and that the sentencing judge erred by delegating to the probation department the authority to have the final say about when his mandated therapy was completed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his argument that faulty fact-finding made his upwardly variant sentence procedurally unreasonable; and (2) Defendant did not show any plain error on the part of the district court in imposing the therapy condition. View "United States v. Morales-Cortijo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's challenge to his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, holding that Appellant did not meet his burden of showing that his counsel's performance during the underlying criminal trial was deficient.Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to distribute a substance containing cocaine base and one count of malicious damage or destruction of property by fire. At sentencing, the trial court determined that Appellant was a career offender in part because his prior Maine state court conviction for unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs qualified as a "controlled substance offense" under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. In this collateral challenge to his sentence, Appellant argued that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel during his sentencing hearing based on his counsel's failure to object to the use of the Maine drug conviction as a predicate offense for the career offender enhancement. The First Circuit denied relief, holding that Appellant's ineffective assistance claim failed. View "Thompson v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2013, New Balance entered into a Distribution Agreement with PSG to distribute its products in Peru. The Agreement contained an arbitration clause, which New Balance invoked in 2018. Also joined as respondents in this arbitration were Ribadeneira, PSG’s controlling owner, and Superdeporte, another business entity owned by Ribadeneira in Peru. The arbitrator issued two awards, which imposed liability on PSG and Superdeporte for breach of the Distribution Agreement, and on PSG, Superdeporte, and Ribadeneira for tortious interference. The arbitrator rejected three counterclaims brought against New Balance. Finding that the arbitrator had improperly exercised jurisdiction over nonsignatories Ribadeneira and Superdeporte, the district court vacated the awards.The First Circuit reversed. Theories of assumption and equitable estoppel apply to support arbitral jurisdiction over Ribadeneira and Superdeporte. Superdeporte was PSG's successor-in-interest and assumed PSG's obligation to arbitrate under the Distribution Agreement. Ribadeneira is estopped from denying that the Agreement's arbitration clause is enforceable, just as he is estopped from asserting his nonsignatory status to avoid the obligation to arbitrate under that clause. The tortious interference claims were "related to or arising out of" the Agreement. View "Ribadeneira v. New Balance Athletics, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of extortionate interstate communications and threatening to injury property or reputation, holding that Defendant did not meet his burden on any of his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the government improperly relied on statements made by a non-testifying witness in its closing argument and improperly instructed the jury that provocation was not a defense. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor's use of the statement at issue was improper, but the improper comment did not likely affect the outcome of the trial; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving a provocation instruction; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's request for a downward departure. View "United States v. Cantwell" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court entering summary judgment for Defendants on all of Plaintiff's claims in this wrongful termination case, holding that there was no error in the trial court proceedings.Plaintiff, a former police officer, filed a complaint against the town of Lexington, Massachusetts and its retired chief of police, arguing that Defendants denied him due process during the proceedings that led to the termination of his employment and that Defendants intentionally interfered with his efforts to gain employment elsewhere. The district court entered summary judgment for Defendants on all claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no material fact in dispute as to whether the reason stated for refusing to hire Plaintiff was pretextual and that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Defendants' stated reason for denying him employment was pretextual. View "Mirabella v. Town of Lexington, Mass." on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing Petitioner's appeal of the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) concluding that Petitioner's Brazilian conviction constituted both an aggravated felony and a particularly serious crime rendering him ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure, holding that there was no error of law.On appeal, Petitioner argued that his Brazilian conviction was in absentia and that both the IJ and BIA erred in determining that the conviction was valid for immigration purposes, thus barring him from obtaining the relief he sought. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Brazilian conviction was not in absentia; (2) there was no evidence to support Petitioner's claim that his foreign conviction was a travesty of justice; and (3) substantial evidence supported the IJ's conclusion that Petitioner's conviction was not politically motivated. View "Andrade-Prado, Jr. v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Kent County Memorial Hospital and Michael Dacey, M.D., in his individual capacity and as President of Kent Hospital, and dismissing Richard Gilbert, M.D.'s suit challenging the Hospital Board of Trustees' revocation of Dr. Gilbert's privileges at Kent Hospital, holding that dismissal was proper.In granting summary judgment for Defendants, the district court concluded that Dr. Gilbert had not rebutted the presumption that Defendants were immune from liability in damages under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), 42 U.S.C. 11101-11152, and immune from suit under Rhode Island state law. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Board was entitled to HCQIA immunity; and (2) the Board was entitled to immunity under R.I. Gen. Laws 23-17-23(b). View "Gilbert v. Kent County Memorial Hospital" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed upon his plea of guilty to five counts of carjacking and one count of attempted carjacking with a direct modification of the restitution order as specified in this and affirmed the modified restitution order, holding that Defendant's claims of sentencing error were without merit and that there was merit as to one of his claims regarding the restitution order.Defendant pleaded guilty to all six counts in the indictment. After a hearing, the district court imposed a within-the-range term of immurement of seventy-eight months and ordered Defendant to pay $9,295 in restitution. The First Circuit affirmed as modified, holding (1) there was no procedural error in Defendant's sentence; (2) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable; and (3) the district court must modify the portion of the restitution order dealing with reimbursement for transmission repairs. View "United States v. De Jesus-Torres" on Justia Law