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

In this case concerning the regulation of gambling licenses in the Commonwealth the First Circuit reversed in part the summary judgment for Defendants and certified questions of law to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC).An option contract for the purchase of land gave Encore Boston Harbor the option to purchase land from FBT Realty, LLC for $75 million should the Massachusetts Gaming Commission grant Encore a gaming license. The Commission ultimately conditioned the grant of the license on a $35 million purchase price for the sale of the land and signed certification by each member of FBT, except for Plaintiff, that they were sole members of the company. Defendants presented Plaintiff with an offer that would "make him whole" if he signed the certification in a contract. Plaintiff executed the required certification and then brought this action alleging, among other claims, breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding no valid or enforceable contract. The First Circuit reversed in part, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to certain claims and that the question of whether the contract was unenforceable as contrary to state law and/or as a violation of public policy must be resolved by the SJC. View "Gattineri v. Wynn MA, LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed in part the order of the district court granting summary judgment rejecting Defendants' affirmative defense of qualified immunity against Plaintiff's procedural due process claim, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the federal claims against Defendants.Plaintiff brought this action against three former board members of the Town of Freetown Board of Selectmen, citing 42 U.S.C. 1983 and alleging deprivation of her right to procedural due process on the basis that Defendants removed her state court action to the federal district court. The district court rejected Defendants' argument for qualified immunity on summary judgment. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the doctrine of qualified immunity shielded Defendants from liability against Plaintiff's due process claim. View "Lawless v. Sadeck" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court dismissing in part Plaintiffs' claims that a subset of Defendants participated in a conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 and that this conspiracy injured Plaintiffs, holding that there was no error.Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that Defendants engaged in several interrelated schemes to defraud Plaintiffs of Maine real estate. The district court dismissed the RICO conspiracy claim against two defendants, David Hirshon and LOSU, LLC, and denied Plaintiffs' motion seeking limited discovery from Hirshon. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) ruling that the complaint failed to state a RICO conspiracy claim against Hirshon and LOSU; (2) declining to consider certain documents outside the complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss; and (3) denying Plaintiffs discovery. View "Douglas v. Hirshon" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the sentencing court sentencing Defendant to an upwardly variant thirty-year sentence for his conviction for discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, holding that remand was required in this case.After a hearing, the district court imposed a thirty-year incarcerate sentence reflecting a twenty-year upward variance for Defendant's conviction. Defendant appealed, challenging his sentence as substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit vacated the judgment below, holding that the district court failed to articulate a plausible sentencing rationale, requiring that Defendant's sentence be vacated and this case remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Flores-Nater" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for distributing or possessing with intent to distribute fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the government presented insufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction and that various trial errors occurred, requiring reversal of his conviction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the evidence presented at trial provided a sufficient basis for a rational juror to find Defendant guilty of violating 21 U.S.C. 841; and (2) none of Defendant's claimed trial errors had merit. View "United States v. Santiago" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Services (the Agency) requiring vessels fishing for herring on certain fishing trips to carry monitors on board was a permissible exercise of agency authority, holding that the rule was a permissible exercise of the Agency's authority and was otherwise lawful.Plaintiffs, owners of two fishing vessels that harvest herring brought this action asserting, among other things, that they were disproportionately burdened by carrying monitors and that the Agency's monitor rule was arbitrary and capricious. The district court granted summary judgment for the Agency. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the challenged rule was authorized by Congress and immune to Plaintiffs' various procedural and substantive challenges. View "Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce" on Justia Law

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