Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Defendant stole his older brother's identity to obtain five fraudulent mortgages. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to three counts of wire fraud and one count of identity fraud pursuant to a plea agreement. Under to the agreement, Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and ordered to pay $454,207 in restitution to the two defrauded mortgage companies. The plea agreement also contained an appeal waiver. Defendant appealed, challenging the restitution component of his sentence and arguing that his appeal waiver did not extend to it. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Defendant's appeal, as the waiver unambiguously encompassed restitution. View "United States v. Okoye" on Justia Law

Appellant was a criminal defense attorney that represented a client in a criminal case relating to the discharge of sewage into public waters. After trial, the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the client's convictions and remanded for retrial. Appellant subsequently filed ten motions in limine mostly to exclude or limit certain evidence used in the first trial. The trial court issued an order sanctioning Appellant and his client for having filed the motions in limine over the course of the six days prior to the scheduled start of the trial, "abusively late." The court suggested that the motions were filed late to avoid impacting the client's speedy trial act motion or to force a continuance of the trial. The First Circuit reversed the order, holding that the trial court erred in sanctioning Appellant, as there was no clear deadline for the filing of the motions in limine. View "United States v. Agosto-Vega" on Justia Law

Defendant, a pharmacist, accepted payments from "Internet pharmacy sites" for whose customers Defendant's employer, a mail-order pharmacy, filled orders. Eventually, Defendant was indicted on charges related to these payments and pled guilty to soliciting and accepting kickbacks. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court should have sentenced him for accepting an illegal gratuity rather than for demanding a bribe. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because Defendant pled guilty to soliciting and receiving a bribe, not a gratuity, and because recent changes in case law did not provide Defendant with assistance on appeal, the district court did not err in its judgment. View "United States v. Gracie" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to an eight-count federal indictment including charges of child pornography and using an interstate facility to attempt to persuade a person under eighteen to engage in a sexual act. After Defendant was released on probation, his supervised release was revoked for violating the terms of his probation. The district court subsequently directed Defendant's civil confinement as a "sexually dangerous person" under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Defendant was a sexually dangerous person subject to commitment. View "United States v. Volungus" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on a single count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. That same day, law enforcement officers interviewed Defendant at a proffer session, which was held pursuant to a written proffer agreement. The government promised Defendant it would not use against him any "statements made or other information" disclosed at the proffer session. After the proffer session failed, Defendant proceeded to trial. Despite its earlier assurances, the government presented at trial voice identification testimony from a police officer based on what the officer had heard at the proffer session. The testimony linked Defendant to an incriminating recorded telephone conversation. The jury found Defendant guilty. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Defendant's conviction, holding (1) admission of the testimony violated the proffer agreement and Defendant's due process rights; and (2) the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded. View "United States v. Melvin" on Justia Law

After losing his job as a stockbroker and financial advisor and his accompanying health insurance, Appellant applied for and received subsidized health insurance for several years. Russell represented on each application that he had no income to report and was unemployed, but Appellant was working under the table during those years. After a government investigation and an ensuing jury trial, Appellant was convicted of making false statements in connection with the payment of health care benefits. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the jury instruction on the definition of willfulness was not error; (2) the government presented sufficient evidence that Appellant's false statements were material to support the conviction; (3) the district court did not err in excluding certain testimony as state-of-mind hearsay; and (4) neither the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments nor his questions in eliciting testimony from a witness necessitated reversal. View "United States v. Russell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendants Salvatore DiMasi, the former Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and Richard McDonough, a lobbyist, were convicted of several crimes, including honest-services fraud and conspiracy to commit honest-services fraud, resulting from a scheme to funnel money to DiMasi in exchange for political favors. The district court sentenced DiMasi to ninety-six months' imprisonment and McDonough to eight-four months' imprisonment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendants' convictions; (2) the trial court did not prejudicially err in instructing the jury; (3) the trial court did not err in its challenged evidentiary rulings; and (4) the trial court did not err in sentencing Defendants. View "United States v. McDonough" on Justia Law

The parties in this case were a group of chess players and their opponent, the Puerto Rico Chess Federation. The chess players filed suit against the chess federation in Puerto Rico court, alleging violations of their rights under the United States and Puerto Rico constitutions and Puerto Rico law. The chess federation successfully removed the case to federal court. The chess players subsequently filed a second case, again in Puerto Rico court, excluding any claims under federal law. The federation also removed this case. The district court consolidated the two cases and declared jurisdiction over the second case under the All Writs Act. Ultimately, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the federation on all claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court had federal subject matter jurisdiction over the first case but did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the second case; and (2) the district court incorrectly granted summary judgment to the federal on some of the chess players' Commonwealth law claims. View "Ortiz-Bonilla v. Federacion de Ajedrez de P.R., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant, a corrections officer, was convicted of drug and weapons charges for providing security for a drug transaction orchestrated by the FBI as part of a sting operation. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed subject to a limited remand, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment, as the evidence was insufficient to raise a jury issue of entrapment; and (2) the sentence imposed by the district court was procedurally sound and substantively reasonable. Remanded for correction of a reference in the written judgment that caused no prejudice to Defendant. View "United States v. Diaz-Maldonado" on Justia Law

Defendants, Jimmy Carrasquillo-Rodriguez (Carrasquillo) and Jesus Pabellon Rodriguez (Pabellon), were convicted on drug and gun charges arising from a reverse sting operation set up by Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seeking to reduce the flow of illegal narcotics from the Dominican Republic to Puerto Rico. With one exception, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both Defendants' convictions and Carrasquillo's sentence, holding (1) Carrasquillo's conviction for possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number was not supported by sufficient evidence; (2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the remaining convictions challenged by Defendants; (3) the language in the verdict form did not constitute plain error sufficient to warrant a new trial; (4) the district court did not plainly err in its instructions to the jury; and (5) the district court did not err in sentencing Carrasquillo. View "United States v. Pabellon-Rodriguez" on Justia Law