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

Dario Giambro was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The conviction stemmed from evidence found by police officers who forcibly entered his home in Hebron, Maine, without a warrant. The officers entered the home based on information from Giambro's son, Antonio, who reported that his mother, Arline, had died and was not in the house. Giambro argued that the warrantless entry violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that the evidence should be suppressed. He also challenged the charge on Second Amendment grounds.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied Giambro's motion to suppress, ruling that the entry fell within the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The court found that the officers had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that Arline might be in need of immediate aid, despite Antonio's report that she had died and was not in the house. The court also denied Giambro's motion to dismiss the charge on Second Amendment grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court's application of the emergency aid exception. The appellate court held that the officers did not have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that Arline was alive and in need of immediate aid, given that Antonio had been in the house that morning and reported that she was not there. The court emphasized that the officers should have spoken to Antonio and Giambro, who were available for questioning, before forcibly entering the home. Consequently, the First Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, vacated Giambro's conviction and sentence, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not address the Second Amendment claim due to its ruling on the Fourth Amendment issue. View "United States v. Giambro" on Justia Law

A family of four from Ecuador, including Milton Geovanny Vargas Panchi, his wife, and their two children, entered the United States in August 2021. They sought asylum and withholding of removal, claiming persecution based on race and membership in the social group of "Indigenous Ecuadorian men." Vargas Panchi cited frequent discrimination, including verbal harassment, threats, and a physical attack after a soccer game, as well as denial of medical treatment due to his indigeneity. He provided declarations, photographs, and country-conditions evidence to support his claims.The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, and Vargas Panchi conceded removability but applied for asylum and withholding of removal. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found his testimony credible but concluded that the attack after the soccer game was motivated by the opposing team's loss rather than his indigeneity. The IJ also found that other discrimination he faced did not rise to the level of persecution and that his fear of future persecution was not objectively well-founded. Consequently, the IJ denied his asylum and withholding of removal claims.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that there was no clear error in the IJ's finding that the soccer game attack lacked a nexus to a protected ground. The BIA also concurred that the other discrimination Vargas Panchi faced did not constitute persecution. As a result, the BIA concluded that he was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA's decision. The court found that substantial evidence supported the agency's findings, including the lack of a nexus between the soccer game attack and a protected ground, and the determination that the denial of medical care did not rise to the level of persecution. The court also agreed that Vargas Panchi did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. Consequently, the petition for review was denied. View "Vargas Panchi v. Garland" on Justia Law

Justin and Jared Brackett own and operate two restaurants in Harwich, Massachusetts: Ember Pizza, Inc. and The Port Restaurant and Bar, Inc. Both establishments held liquor and entertainment licenses issued by the town. Allegedly, they violated Harwich's noise ordinance and Massachusetts COVID-19 restrictions, leading to suspensions and restrictions on their permits. In response, they sued Harwich, several town officials, and other individuals in federal district court, asserting various federal and state claims.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts largely granted the defendants' dispositive motions, rejecting all of Ember and The Port's claims. The court also denied their request for leave to amend their complaint, finding that an amendment would be futile. Ember and The Port then appealed the district court's decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's rulings. The appellate court held that Ember and The Port failed to state a plausible claim for relief under federal law, including their First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and procedural due process claims. The court also found that the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act claims and common law claims, including civil conspiracy and defamation, were inadequately pleaded. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendments would not have cured the deficiencies in the original complaint. View "3137, LLC v. Town of Harwich" on Justia Law

Rasheed Akinsanya, a Nigerian citizen, petitioned for review of the administrative denial of his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Akinsanya argued that he would be tortured by Boko Haram if returned to Nigeria. He had previously served in the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) of the Nigeria Police Force and cooperated in an investigation against his unit for corruption and ties to Boko Haram. After receiving threats and learning of attacks on his family, Akinsanya overstayed his visa in the United States. He was later convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, leading to his identification as a removable noncitizen.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Akinsanya and his witnesses credible but concluded that he was ineligible for deferral of removal under the CAT. The IJ determined that Akinsanya failed to prove that he would be tortured with the acquiescence of Nigerian officials. The IJ noted the Nigerian government's efforts to combat Boko Haram, including designating it a terrorist organization and engaging in counterterrorism efforts, but found these efforts insufficient to establish government acquiescence.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that the Nigerian authorities' inability to protect Akinsanya did not amount to acquiescence. The BIA emphasized that the Nigerian government was taking some measures to combat Boko Haram, and the potential ineffectiveness of these measures was not enough to prove government acquiescence.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the BIA did not adequately analyze whether Nigerian authorities would likely acquiesce in Akinsanya's torture. The court noted that the BIA failed to apply the correct legal standard for acquiescence, which requires identifying the government's legal duty and considering whether the steps taken by officials satisfy that duty. The court granted the petition and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Akinsanya v. Garland" on Justia Law

The case involves the fate of the Frank J. Wood Bridge, a historic bridge in Maine connecting Topsham and Brunswick. Built in 1932, the bridge is no longer safe without substantial rehabilitation or replacement. The Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) decided that replacing the bridge was more sensible than rehabilitating it. Since federal funds would be used, MDOT needed approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and compliance with federal statutes, including Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, due to the bridge's historic status.The FHWA approved MDOT's plan to replace the bridge, despite objections from preservation groups. The plaintiffs challenged this decision in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, which rejected their challenges. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the FHWA's decision in part, remanding the case to determine whether a 53% price differential between rehabilitation and replacement constituted a cost of extraordinary magnitude under Section 4(f).On remand, the FHWA concluded that the 53% differential was indeed a cost of extraordinary magnitude. Plaintiffs argued that updated cost estimates showed that rehabilitation would now be cheaper than replacement. The FHWA, however, found the plaintiffs' updated estimates flawed and did not recalculate the differential. The plaintiffs then sued again, and the district court granted summary judgment for the agencies, finding that the FHWA had complied with the remand instructions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the FHWA acted within the scope of the remand by deciding whether the 53% price differential was a cost of extraordinary magnitude and was not required to reopen the record to consider new cost information. View "National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Buttigieg" on Justia Law

In September 2021, Jonathan Fargas-Reyes pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a modified Glock pistol. He was sentenced to 33 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release, starting in November 2021. In January 2022, Puerto Rico police observed Fargas with firearms outside his home. After a brief chase, Fargas and his girlfriend, Mary Herrera-Cruz, were arrested. They were found with multiple firearms and ammunition. Fargas pled guilty to illegally possessing firearms and ammunition as a convicted felon, while Herrera pled guilty to aiding and abetting.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico sentenced Fargas to 120 months in prison for the new crime, above the recommended range of 57 to 71 months, and an additional 24 months for violating his supervised release, to be served consecutively. Herrera received a 37-month sentence, within the guidelines range.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Fargas argued that the government breached the plea agreement by effectively advocating for a higher sentence and that his sentences were procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The court found no plain error in the government's conduct, noting that the prosecutor adhered to the plea agreement's terms. The court also held that the district judge adequately explained the reasons for the upward variance, emphasizing the seriousness of Fargas's conduct and the need for deterrence and public protection. The court rejected Fargas's argument about sentencing disparity with Herrera, noting significant differences in their criminal histories and circumstances.The First Circuit affirmed Fargas's sentences but allowed him the right to seek resentencing under a retroactive guideline amendment that could eliminate the status points added to his criminal history score. View "United States v. Fargas-Reyes" on Justia Law

In the early hours of May 11, 2018, Chasrick Heredia, while celebrating his birthday, had a violent encounter with Manchester Police officers, including Officer Michael Roscoe. Heredia filed a complaint alleging excessive force and other constitutional violations. At trial, the jury found Roscoe liable for excessive force and awarded Heredia nominal and punitive damages. The district court denied Roscoe's motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and for remittitur of the punitive damages award.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire presided over the initial trial. The jury found in favor of Heredia on the excessive force claim against Roscoe but in favor of the defendants on all other claims. Roscoe's post-trial motions for JMOL and remittitur were denied by the district court, which concluded that a reasonable juror could find that Roscoe violated Heredia's constitutional rights and that qualified immunity did not apply.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Roscoe's motions. The appellate court held that a reasonable jury could find that Roscoe used excessive force when he performed a takedown on Heredia after Heredia had submitted to arrest by raising his hands. The court also held that Roscoe was not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that increasing the use of force after an arrestee had submitted was unconstitutional. Additionally, the court found that the punitive damages awarded were justified based on Roscoe's reckless indifference to Heredia's constitutional rights. View "Heredia v. Roscoe" on Justia Law

In June 2013, Fagbemi Miranda was convicted of first-degree murder in Massachusetts state court. The defense aimed to discredit the government's key witness, suggesting Miranda's brother was responsible for the shooting. However, Miranda wanted to testify that he shot the victim in self-defense. This disagreement in defense strategy is central to the habeas case. The incident occurred on October 10, 2005, when Miranda and Christopher Barros argued outside Miranda's home. Miranda's brother, Wayne, joined the argument with a handgun. After a chase, Wayne handed the gun to Miranda, who then shot Barros. Barros was found unconscious and later died. Initially, Wayne was arrested, but a neighbor's later testimony implicated Miranda.Miranda was indicted in 2008 and convicted in 2013. He filed a notice of appeal and a motion for a new trial, which were denied. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed his conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial in 2020. Miranda's petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. He then sought habeas relief in the District of Massachusetts, which was denied in 2022, but a certificate of appealability was granted.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. Miranda argued that his counsel interfered with his right to set the defense objective, that his due process rights were violated by the trial judge's refusal to instruct the jury on self-defense, and that he was deprived of his rights to testify and to effective assistance of counsel. The court found that the SJC's rulings were not unreasonable applications of federal law. The court concluded that Miranda's counsel's errors did not prejudice the outcome of the trial, as Miranda's self-defense claim was not viable. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas petition. View "Miranda v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Donald Turner pleaded guilty to bank robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At the time of these offenses, Turner was on supervised release and admitted to related violations. Due to his history of violent felonies, Turner was designated an armed career criminal, resulting in an advisory sentencing guideline range of 180 to 210 months. The district court sentenced him to 210 months for the new offenses and an additional 24 months for the supervised release violations, to be served consecutively.Previously, Turner had been convicted of multiple bank robberies. In 2006, he committed two bank robberies in Maine, leading to a 60-month sentence. In 2011, while on supervised release, he committed another bank robbery and was sentenced to 72 months, plus 24 months for the supervised release violation. In 2020, while again on supervised release, Turner committed another bank robbery, leading to his current charges.Turner appealed, arguing that his felon-in-possession conviction violated his Second Amendment rights, that the district court committed procedural and substantive errors in sentencing, and that the court misapprehended its discretion regarding the consecutive supervised release sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed these claims.The First Circuit held that Turner waived his Second Amendment claim by not timely moving to dismiss the felon-in-possession count as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12. The court found that the district court imposed a procedurally sound and substantively reasonable sentence. The court also determined that the district court did not believe it was required to impose a consecutive revocation sentence but chose to do so based on sentencing considerations. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the judgments. View "US v. Turner" on Justia Law

A Brazilian family of three, William Reginaldo Rodrigues, Debora Soares Gomes Rodrigues, and their son, W.T.S.R., entered the United States without inspection and were charged with being in the country without admission or parole. They sought asylum and withholding of removal, claiming fear of persecution from drug traffickers due to a debt owed by Mr. Rodrigues's brother-in-law, Daniel, and from the Gardingo family, a powerful political family in Brazil. Mr. Rodrigues testified that drug traffickers threatened Daniel and that the Gardingo family coerced employees to support their political candidates, but admitted that neither group had directly harmed or threatened his family.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Mr. Rodrigues's testimony credible but concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ determined that the Petitioners had not shown that they would be singled out for persecution by either the drug traffickers or the Gardingo family. Consequently, the IJ denied their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, finding no clear error or compelling reason to overturn it.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA's decision. The court found that the IJ's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence, noting that generalized country conditions reports and Mr. Rodrigues's testimony did not demonstrate a specific threat to the Petitioners. The court also agreed that the Petitioners failed to show an objectively reasonable fear of persecution based on their political opinion, as there was no evidence that the Gardingo family was aware of or would target Mr. Rodrigues for his political beliefs. The petition for review was denied. View "Rodrigues v. Garland" on Justia Law