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

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court entering summary judgment against Plaintiff, a police officer with the City of Somerville, and dismissing his wrongful discharge claim, holding that there was no error in the grant of summary judgment.Plaintiff was involved in an off-duty altercation with a civilian, who reported the matter. The Somerville police department conducted an internal investigation, during which Plaintiff lied about his conduct. After a hearing, the City determined that justice cause existed to terminate Plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff brought this lawsuit, alleging that his discharge was based on his race in violation of Title VII and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B. The district court entered summary judgment for the City. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly dismissed both claims on summary judgment. View "Diaz v. City of Somerville" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for possessing firearms and ammunition as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), but reversed his conviction for possessing a machine-gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(o), holding that Defendant's section 922(o) conviction was not supported by substantial evidence.After a trial, Defendant was convicted of both counts on which he was indicted and sentenced to forty-one months in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that his section 922(o) conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. The First Circuit agreed and reversed that conviction, holding (1) the government failed to meet its burden to show that Defendant knew at the relevant time that a modified Glock pistol had been transformed into a machine-gun; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining claims of error. View "United States v. Pina-Nieves" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court determining that this case could not be adjudicated and dismissing the suit, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff, a foreign counterterrorism corporation, brought this lawsuit seeking an order freezing some of its Massachusetts assets based on allegations that a former government official misappropriated billions of dollars from the corporation. Defendants argued that the funds were lawfully received in connection with clandestine operations that were sometimes undertaken alongside the United States government. The United States government then asserted the state secrets privilege and successfully got state secrets and other information excluded from the case. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that it could not examine the claims and defenses or award the preliminary equitable relief sought without weighing the privileged information and risking disclosure of state secrets. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to any of the relief it requested. View "Sakab Saudi Holding Co. v. Aljabri" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this suit brought by Plaintiff in the District of Puerto Rico against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the FOMB) on jurisdictional grounds pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff brought this suit in his official capacity as both a member and the minority leader of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives, alleging that the FOMB violated the Territories Clause of the federal Constitution by nullifying a law that established the Commonwealth's budget and replacing it with the FOMB's own budget. The district court dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring his claims. View "Hernandez-Montanez v. Financial Oversight & Management Bd. for P.R." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the restitution order entered by the district court holding Defendant jointly and severally liable for all sums illicitly obtained by the charged conspiracy in this case, holding that the restitution order was not an abuse of the district court's discretion.Defendant, a lawyer formerly licensed in Florida, and his co-conspirators organized a scheme designed to defraud investors of millions of dollars. The conspirators convicted at least five people to invest substantially in the scheme. One of the victims eventually contacted authorities, and Defendant and his co-conspirators were charged with a single count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Defendant pleaded guilty. The district court sentenced Defendant to twenty-nine months of immurement followed by supervised release and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $3,473,701. The First Circuit affirmed the restitution order, holding that where a defendant is convicted as a member of a wire-fraud conspiracy, a district court has discretion to order him to reimburse the victims of the scheme, jointly and severally with his co-conspirators, for all reasonably foreseeable losses created by the fraudulent scheme. View "United States v. Ochoa" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal were unavailing.At issue on appeal were the district court's drug-quantity calculation for sentencing and its denial of Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant's combined sentence exceeded sixty-six months, the waiver of appeal provision in Defendant's plea agreement did not apply; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea; and (3) the district court did not commit plain error in its drug-quantity calculation for sentencing. View "United States v. Nieves-Melendez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of seventy-eight months in prison in connection with his plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking crime, holding that the district court committed no plain sentencing error.At issue on appeal was the discrepancy between the drug quantities specified in the plan agreement and the presentence report (PSR). While the sentence fell within the Guidelines range calculated in the PSR, it exceeded the sentencing cap provided in the agreement, and therefore, the appeal-waiver provision did not vest. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court's imputation of all the drugs found in an apartment to Defendant did not constitute clear error, and there was no clear error in the district court's drug-attribution finding. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Andino" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the sentence the district court judge imposed after revoking Defendant's term of supervised release, holding that the district judge's use of alleged facts from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico court's prosecution of the charge against Defendant to determine Defendant's sentence was plain error.In 2011, Defendant was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846, 860, conspiracy to distribute narcotics. While Defendant was serving his term of supervised release, Commonwealth authorities charged him with violating Article 133 of the Puerto Rico Penal Code for attempting to commit lewd acts. A magistrate judge found probable cause that Defendant had violated a condition of his release and imposed a three-year term of imprisonment. The First Circuit vacated the sentence, holding that the district judge committed plain error by improperly relying on factual allegations that were not in the record when he imposed an upwardly variant sentence. View "United States v. Ramos-Carreras" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed Appellant's appeal from his plea of guilty to two of thirty-four child pornography possession charges for which he was indicted, holding that Appellant's waiver of appeal was valid and enforceable.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty to counts nineteen and thirty-four of the indictment, and the government dismissed the remaining thirty-two counts. The plea agreement contained a waiver of appeal clause. Appellant testified under oath that he understood the terms of the agreement, including the waiver of appeal. The district court imposed a sentence at the top of the Guidelines range and a lifetime term of supervised release. Appellant appealed, challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that Appellant's waiver of appeal was valid, enforceable, and barred further consideration of his arguments. View "United States v. Boudreau" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's two convictions for possessing a firearm as a prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2), holding that sufficient evidence supported the convictions and that no governmental misconduct occurred during the grand jury proceedings.After a trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict on both counts against Defendant, and the district court sentenced him to sixty-six months' imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the government presented sufficient competent evidence to prove the material elements of the charges brought against Defendant; (2) the district court did not err by not striking certain testimony; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment on the ground that the government committed misconduct during the grand jury proceedings to obtain it. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law