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

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for false arrest, false imprisonment, and violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA), holding that the district court incorrectly determined that 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) deprived it of jurisdiction.In his complaint, Plaintiff argued that, for the purpose of his repatriation to Cambodia, he was improperly arrested and detained by federal immigration officers. At issue was whether section 1252(g)'s bar on judicial review of claims "arising from" the government's decision to "execute removal orders" precludes jurisdiction over challenges to the legality of the detention at issue in this case. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The First Circuit reversed, holding that section 1252(g) did not bar judicial review of Plaintiff's challenge to the lawfulness of his detention. View "Kong v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence of a 108-month term of immurement for attempted possession with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Defendant waived his claim that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress on the grounds that his arrest and the subsequent search of his person were unreasonable; (2) the district court did not plainly error in allowing the testimony of a detective; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; and (4) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Concepcion-Guliam" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed Appellant's appeal from his conviction and sentence, holding that Appellant's waiver of appeal in the plea agreement was valid and enforceable.Appellant was charged with drug- and firearm-related offenses, and the parties entered a plea agreement in which Appellant agreed to plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The agreement included an appeal waiver provision that applied if the district court sentenced Appellant to an eight-year-or-less incarcerative term. On appeal, Appellant attempted to challenge the application of two sentencing enhancements. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that the appeal waiver contained in Appellant's plea agreement was valid and enforceable, precluding this appeal. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that the government had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant had violated the conditions of his supervised release and sentencing him to a two-year term of imprisonment, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Appellant challenged the district court's determination that the government proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he possessed a firearm in violation of the conditions of his supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) a releasee does not have a Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses during revocation proceedings, and Appellant's remaining constitutional challenge was waived; (2) the district court erred in failing to make the explicit balancing determination contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C), but the error was harmless; and (3) the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Teixeira" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court entering a partial judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants, holding that Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on their claims of error.Nathalie Nicole-Rivera-Aponte (Rivera) was raped while she was a student at Ponce Paramedical College in Ponce, Puerto Rico by the driver of the bus operated by Gomez Bus Line, Inc., (GBL), a company who contracted with the College to provide transportation services to students. Plaintiffs, Rivera and her mother, sued GBL and the College (together, Defendants), alleging negligence. The district court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the claims against them. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' claims of error were unavailing. View "Rivera-Aponte v. Gomez Bus Line, Inc." on Justia Law

In this dispute over indemnification arising from an underlying negligence case, the First Circuit vacated the decision of the district court as to a contractual crossclaim for indemnification, holding that the district court erred.John Caruso was staying at the Omni Hotel in Providence, Rhode Island when he tripped and fell on a curb separating the hotel's valet from its main entrance. Caruso brought this complaint against the both the hotel's valet operator and its owner, claiming that Defendants negligently maintained the premises and had a duty to warn him of an unreasonably safe condition, causing his injuries. The hotel owner filed crossclaims against the valet in the action, seeking indemnification for its litigation costs. As to the indemnification crossclaims the district court held that Omni was not entitled to relief. The First Circuit vacated the judgment for the valet and directed the district court on remand to enter judgment for the hotel owner, holding that the district court's rejection to the hotel owner's right to contractual indemnification was premised on an incorrect view of both Rhode Island law and the language of the parties' contractual agreement. View "Omni Hotels Management Corp. v. Ultimate Parking, LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of sex trafficking of a minor, use of an interstate facility to promote unlawful activity, and maintaining a drug-involved premises, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to a mistrial after the trial judge dismissed two jurors immediately before the jury started deliberating and further erred in denying his motion for a new trial. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no patent abuse of discretion in the trial judge's conclusion that mistrial was unwarranted; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to a new trial on the ground that the government had suppressed impeachment information about one of its witnesses because the suppression did not undermine the confidence in the jury's guilty verdicts. View "United States v. Tucker" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petition's petition for review of the decision of the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (Board) to deny Petitioner a disabled child's annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act (Act), 45 U.S.C. 231a(d)(1)(iii), holding that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence.Petitioner, who was born in 1954, applied in 2015 for a disabled child's annuity under a provision of the Act that entitles unmarried children of certain deceased railroad employees to an annuity if they have developed a disability before the age of twenty-two. The Board found, among other things, that there was inadequate evidence to support a finding that Petitioner suffered a physical or mental impairment prior to age twenty-two. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Petitioner did not have any physical or mental impairment prior to age twenty-two. View "Crockett v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd." on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the sentence imposed upon Defendant after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, holding that there was procedural error in the proceedings below.In the plea agreement at issue the parties agreed to recommend a combined sentence between ninety-six and 120 months in prison. The aggregated Guideline Sentencing Range for the crimes was sixty to sixty-two months' imprisonment. The district court, however, varied upwards to impose a sentence of 144 months. The First Circuit vacated the upwardly variant sentence, holding that because the district court offered no explicit rationale tying the instant facts to the statutory sentencing goals, the court committed plain error. View "United States v. Munoz-Fontanez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, three counts of substantive wire fraud, and two counts of aggravated identity theft, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on appeal.Defendant was convicted of crimes he committed participating in an international scheme that used stolen identities to file fraudulent federal income tax returns with the IRS. The district court sentenced Defendant to a total of seventy months' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) this Court declines to review the merits of Defendant's ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal; (2) a challenged jury instruction did not constructively amend the indictment and was not error; and (3) during sentencing, the district court did not clearly err in calculating the loss amount attributable to Defendant's conduct. View "United States v. Akoto" on Justia Law