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

The First Circuit granted a petition for review sought by Petitioner from the denial of Petitioner's application for cancellation of removal and request for voluntary departure, holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) failed to apply clear error review to the immigration judge's (IJ) finding that Petitioner's removal was extreme hardship to Petitioner's father.Petitioner conceded removability but applied for cancellation of removal and for voluntary departure. Petitioner met the statutory prerequisites for each. The IJ took evidence on the discretionary factors and found that Petitioner merited a favorable exercise of administrative discretion. The BIA reversed, concluding that Petitioner merited neither cancellation of removal or voluntary departure. The First Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the BIA impermissibly changed the IJ's factual finding that Petitioner's removal was hardship to his father. View "Barros v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 alleging that the prosecution violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S.C. 79 (1986) during his criminal trial, holding that there was no error.Based on an interaction with four white men outside an apartment building Petitioner was convicted in the Maine Superior Court of reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon and criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon. Petitioner later filed his petition for habeas corpus. The superior court denied the petition, concluding that the prosecution's race-neutral explanation for striking the sole person of color from the jury pool was not pretextual and, therefore, that there was no purposeful discrimination. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no error. View "Hollis v. Magnusson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of forty-one months' imprisonment imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the sentence.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in calculating his sentencing guidelines range by imposing a two-point enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight and that the government breached the plea agreement at sentencing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in imposing the enhancement; and (2) the government's sentencing arguments did not constitute a breach of the plea agreement. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to 135 months' imprisonment in connection with his pleas of guilty to crimes arising from his sexually-explicit virtual contact with an eleven-year-old Massachusetts girl, holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate reversible error.Defendant pleaded guilty to coercion and enticement of a minor (count one) and transfer of absence material to a minor (count two). The district court imposed a term of 135 months' imprisonment on count one and a term of 120 months on count two, with the terms to be served concurrently. On appeal, Defendant challenged the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no clear error in the district court's decision. View "United States v. Procell" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's conviction of knowingly violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g), which prohibits nine categories of persons from possessing a firearm, holding that the trial court erred when it allowed the jurors to convict without finding that Defendant knew his state-court conviction placed him in the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.In Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), the Supreme Court held that convictions under section 924(a)(2) for knowingly violating section 922(g) require "the Government [to] prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm." On appeal in the instant case, Defendant argued that the proceedings were tainted by errors relating to the mens rea requiring to establish a knowing violation fo section 922(g). The First Circuit vacated the conviction, holding that there was harmful error where the jury was allowed to convict Defendant of knowingly violating section 922(g)(9) without finding that he knew that his assault conviction placed him in the category of persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. View "United States v. Minor" on Justia Law

In this action brought for the nonpayment of a promissory note the First Circuit affirmed the rulings of the district court entering summary judgment against SBK Holdings USA, Inc. and denying SBK's motion to set aside the judgment, holding that there was no error.Unibank for Savings sued Edgar and Elina Sargsyan and 999 Private Jet, LLC based on their nonpayment of a promissory note secured by a Gulfstream aircraft. The district court granted Unibank's unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction authorizing it to repossess the aircraft. SBK subsequently moved to intervene, asserting an alleged superior security interest in the aircraft. The district court allowed the intervention. The district court entered summary judgment against SBK and denied its subsequent motion to set aside the judgment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Unibank held a perfected security interest in the aircraft, while SKB did not. View "UniBank for Savings v. SBK Holdings USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court entering summary judgment against a group of jockeys who demanded higher wages and refused to rice and vacated the orders permanently enjoining the work stoppage and imposing $1,190,685 in damages, holding that the district court erred in granting Plaintiffs an injunction and summary judgment.Plaintiffs, an association of horse owners and the owner of a racetrack, brought this action against the jockeys and their spouses who refused to race, alleging that Defendants engaged in a group boycott in violation of federal antitrust law. The district court granted an injunction, concluding (1) the jockeys were independent contractors and had acted in concert to restrain trade, and (2) the jockeys could not benefit from the labor-dispute exemption because of their independent contractor status. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) the labor-dispute exemption applied in this case; and (2) therefore, the district court erred in granting Plaintiffs and injunction and summary judgment. View "Confederacion Hipica de Puerto Rico v. Confederacion de Jinetes Puertorriqueños, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentences imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to two carjacking counts and one firearm possession count, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal were without merit.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to three specified counts. The district court imposed an aggregate sentence of 150 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's claims of procedural unreasonableness lacked merit; and (2) the 150-month aggregate sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Ortiz-Perez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the order of the district court issued under the stay-put provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1415(j), ordering Portland Public Schools to pay for John Doe's placement at a private school during the pendency of these proceedings, holding that the district court erred.During Doe's fourth-grade year, his parents unilaterally placed him at a private school. The Does subsequently filed for a due process hearing alleging that Portland violated the IDEA by previously finding Doe ineligible for special education services. The district court ordered Portland to pay for Doe's tuition for the duration of this litigation at Aucocisco School, where his parents had unilaterally placed him despite the fact that the hearing officer whose decision was being reviewed had determined that the individualized education plan issued by Portland would provide a free appropriate public education. Portland appealed, arguing that the district court impermissibly ordered it to pay for Doe's placement at the private school during the pendency of these proceedings. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the purposes of the IDEA were not served by having Portland continue to pay for Doe's tuition at Aucocisco. View "Doe v. Portland Public Schools" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the order of the district court dismissing this action, holding that the court erred in characterizing the forum selection clause in this case as mandatory.Plaintiff Zuleyka Rivera, a former Miss Universe, sued Kress Stores of Puerto Rico, Inc. and Mark Berezdivin in federal district court alleging breach of contract and tort claims in connection with an agreement between the parties granting Kress Stores exclusive rights to use Plaintiff's name, pageant title, image, and likeness for the development and promotion of branded items of apparel and fragrances. When Kress Stores failed to pay Plaintiff the stipulated annual stipend she sued in federal district court. The district court granted Kress Stores' motion to dismiss, concluding that the suit was brought in contravention of the agreement's forum selection clause. The First Circuit vacated the judgment below, holding (1) the agreement's forum selection clause did not by its terms exclude jurisdiction in another court; and (2) therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the action based on the forum selection clause. View "Rivera v. Kress Stores of Puerto Rico, Inc." on Justia Law