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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute fentanyl, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error brought on appeal.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute fentanyl. The district court sentenced Defendant to the mandatory minimum of 120 months' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not clearly err when it found that Defendant failed to establish an improper government motive; and (2) did not clearly err when it rejected Defendant's sentencing factor manipulation claim. View "United States v. Benito Lara" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of aiding and abetting (1) a carjacking resulting in death, (2) kidnapping resulting in death, and (3) the use of a gun during a crime of violence resulting in murder (count three), holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) the district court did not err when it did not provide a jury instruction on duress; (3) the inclusion of a potentially invalid predicate offense in the jury's finding that Defendant was guilty on count three was not a plain or obvious error, and even if it was error, it was harmless without any effect on Defendant's substantial rights; and (4) as to Defendant's sentence, the district court did not err when it failed to impose a downward departure based on duress and when it applied an enhancement for obstruction of justice. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Santos" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress the fentanyl discovered in his waistband during a pat-frisk conducted after an anonymous tip alerted the police department of two men passed out in a vehicle, holding that there was no error.In denying Defendant's motion to suppress, the district court concluded that the investigatory stop did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights and that the officers had reasonable suspicion that Defendant could have been armed with a weapon to justify a Terry frisk. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no Fourth Amendment violation because the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion for the initial encounter, for extending the stop, and to believe Defendant was armed and dangerous. View "United States v. Harrington" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence collected during the investigation that led to his arrest, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered after agents executed a warrant to search his residence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the warrant's affidavit established a sufficient nexus between the criminal activity and the places to be searched; (2) the district court reasonably found that no search of Defendant's person occurred; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's statements to law enforcement agents. View "United States v. Corleto" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing Petitioner's appeal of an order of removal from the Immigration Judge (IJ), holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.Petitioner, who was born in Jamaica, conceded that, unless he was a citizen of the United States through derivative citizenship, he was removable as an alien who had been convicted of an aggravated felony. Petitioner accepted an order of removal from the IJ and waived appeal to the BIA. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a pro se appeal claiming derivative United States citizenship. The BIA dismissed the appeal, concluding that the IJ's decision became administratively final upon Petitioner's waiver of appeal. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that there was not a genuine issue of material fact that, if resolved in Petitioner's favor, would support a finding that he was a U.S. citizen. View "Robinson v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and of possessing cocaine and cocaine base with intent to distribute, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After Defendant was found guilty by a jury, the district court imposed a sentence of 168 months, thirty-one months above the range provided by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that (1) the exclusion of Defendant's mother as a witness was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the district court's error in giving a flawed jury instruction on the felon-in-possession charge was not prejudicial; and (3) Defendant's challenges to his sentence were unavailing. View "United States v. Fletcher" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied a petition for review sought by Petitioners, four individuals who left El Salvador for fear of harm at the hands of a gang, holding that the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) was supported by substantial evidence in the record.After Petitioners were charged as removable they conceded removability but cross-applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (IJ) rejected Petitioners' claims for relief, concluding that Petitioners failed to show that their claimed persecution bore a nexus to a protected ground. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioners' petition for review, holding that the agency's determination that family membership was not a central reason for Petitioners' persecution was supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Jimenez-Portillo v. Garland" on Justia Law

In these two different qui tam cases in which the United States executed a settlement agreement with AthenaHealth, Inc. and multiple relators, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Relators' denial of their claims for attorneys' fees, holding that the district court did not err.Relators Cheryl Lovell and William McKusick appealed from the district court's denial of their entire claim for attorneys' fees under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., and relator Georgie Sandborn appealed from the omission of certain claimed fees from his attorneys' fees award. The First Circuit (1) affirmed as to Lovell and McKusick, holding that these relators did not receive a relator's share and so were not entitled to attorneys' fees; and (2) affirmed as to Sanborn, thus rejecting his argument that he may be allowed fees associated with his claim, in which the government did not intervene. View "United States, ex rel. Lovell v. AthenaHealth, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim against Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB and otherwise affirmed the district court order dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint against Wilmington Savings and Selene Finance LP, holding that the district court erred in part.Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that Defendants breached the parties' mortgage contract by selling their property through a non-judicial foreclosure, thus rendering the foreclosure void. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the foreclosure and sale were conducted without providing adequate notice, as required by the mortgage contract. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. The First Circuit reversed in part, holding (1) Plaintiffs stated a claim that the notice of default failed strictly to comply with the requirements of the mortgage contract, and therefore, dismissal of their claim against Wilmington Savings was improper; and (2) as to the remaining claims, dismissal was proper. View "Aubee v. Selene Finance LP" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court substituting the United States as a defendant in the place of the physician that Plaintiff originally sued for wrongful death and vacated the district court's subsequent grant of the Government's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, holding that gaps in the evidentiary record must be filled by further proceedings in the district court.Plaintiff brought a wrongful death action in state court alleging medical malpractice against a physician who worked for a federally-funded health center. Plaintiff's decedent, the patient, was unaffiliated with the health center. When the United States removed the action to federal court it sought to substitute itself for the physician as a defendant. The district court invoked the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 (the Westfall Act), 28 U.S.C. 2679, made the substitution, and dismissed the complaint. The First Circuit vacated the judgment below, holding that because the district court repudiated its earlier reliance on the Waterfall Act, new issues that have emerged must now be resolved. View "O'Brien v. United States" on Justia Law