Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In 2008, a federal grand jury indicted co-defendants Carolyn Kravetz and Boris Levitin on charges stemming from a scheme to defraud restaurant franchisor Dunkin' Brands Inc. Defendants pled guilty in February 2010. Jim Edwards, a journalist who specialized in coverage of the advertising industry for Bnet.com, began covering the proceedings in 2009. During the proceedings, Edwards noticed that various documents were filed under seal in the criminal case. Edwards subsequently moved to unseal the documents. Kravetz opposed the motion, and the district court denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated in part and remanded, holding (1) a presumption of public access attached to Defendants' sentencing memoranda and sentencing letters submitted by third parties on Defendants' behalf; and (2) therefore, the district court was required to state with greater specificity its reasons for denying Edwards' motion to unseal these documents. View "United States v. Kravetz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to both possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The convictions stemmed from a reverse sting operation set up by law enforcement authorities in Massachusetts after Appellant talked with an informant in Peru about purchasing cocaine there. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in choosing the language for its conspiracy instruction; and (2) the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on either affirmative defense of withdrawal or entrapment. View "United States v. Guevara" on Justia Law

Employee, a scientist formerly employed by a University, claimed her supervisor (Supervisor) sexually harassed her. Employee complained about the harassment, but University dismissed Employee's complaint. Employee subsequently resigned from her position and brought this lawsuit against University and Supervisor (collectively, Defendants), claiming that she was sexually harassed by Supervisor, retaliated against by University for filing the administrative sexual harassment complaint, and constructively discharged in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employee also raised supplemental Commonwealth claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, finding that Employee failed to make out a prima facie case for any of the relief she sought. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation and constructive discharge claim; but (2) vacated the grant of summary judgment on the Title VII sexual harassment claim and the Puerto Rico law claims prohibiting sexual harassment in employment and gender based discrimination. View "Gerald v. Univ. of Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiring to possess narcotics with intent to distribute. Although his plea agreement contained a waiver-of-appeal provision, Defendant nevertheless attempted to appeal. Defendant's principal claim on appeal was that the district court erred in the sentence it imposed. The government responded by arguing that the claim was foreclosed by the terms of the plea agreement. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) enforced the waiver of appeal, holding that the waiver of appeal was enforceable; (2) rejected Defendant's parallel ineffective assistance of counsel claim as unripe; and (3) dismissed Defendant's appeal. View "United States v. Rivera-Orta" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The district court sentenced Defendant to five years in prison. The sentence was well above the top of the applicable guideline sentencing range. Defendant appealed, contending that the district court did not make an individualized assessment of the relevant sentencing factors but, rather, relied on impermissible considerations. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's sentence, holding (1) the district judge gave individualized attention to Defendant's situation; (2) it is permissible for a sentencing court to consider the incidence and trend lines of particular types of crime in the affected community, and the assignment of appreciable weight to the need for deterrence in this case was a reasonable choice; (3) Defendant's claim of unwarranted sentencing disparity failed; and (4) under the circumstances, Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Flores-Machicote" on Justia Law

The police investigation of a hit-and-run resulted in the arrests of Robert and Mario Robinson, father and son, and the seizure of Robert's car. All of the charges against both Mario and Robert were eventually dismissed by the state trial court. The Robinsons subsequently filed suit against the City and eight police officers who were present for or involved in various phases of the investigation, arrest, and detention. The Robinsons raised state and federal constitutional claims based on allegations of unlawful arrest, the use of excessive force, and the unreasonable seizure of the car. They also asserted several state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on most of the Robinson's claims with the exception of the claims of excessive force, assault and battery, aiding and abetting, and civil conspiracy. The district court later granted summary judgment for three of the police officer defendants as to the civil conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims. The court then dismissed the remaining claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that based on the record, the defendants acted lawfully. View "Robinson v. Cook" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted possession of at least five kilograms of cocaine with the intent to distribute. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the district court erroneously allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence that after his arrest, law enforcement agents discovered roughly $45,000 in a storage locker that he rented, and (2) the prosecutor's closing argument contained improper comments that violated his right to a fair trial. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) in light of the evidence, there was little risk of unfair prejudice in the admission of the cash seized from Defendant's storage locker; and (2) viewed in their proper context and under the circumstances, the prosecutor's comments were not improper. View "United States v. Matias" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with one count of possessing firearms and ammunition after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9). As a predicate offense to the charge, the indictment listed a 2008 misdemeanor conviction for Defendant's assault of his wife. After the district court denied Defendant's pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment, Defendant entered a guilty plea conditioned on his right to appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss. Defendant appealed, asking the First Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider arguments regarding (1) whether section 922(g)(9) should be construed to exclude a purportedly non-violent offensive physical contact misdemeanor conviction as a predicate offense, and (2) whether applying section 922(g)(9) to such a prior conviction would violate Defendant's Second Amendment rights. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that First Circuit precedent in United States v. Booker and United States v. Nason foreclosed the arguments made here. View "United States v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to unlawfully distribute Oxycodone, Oxycontin, Suboxone, Larzepam, and Ativan. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) denying Defendant's Speedy Trial Act claims in her motion to dismiss on the basis that the exclusion of time for her co-defendant's continuance was unreasonable as to her; (2) failing to sua sponte order a mental competency evaluation after Defendant sustained an injury during trial; and (3) denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal based on a prejudicial variance between the conspiracy proven at trial and that charged in the superseding indictment. View "United States v. Maryea" on Justia Law

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received funds appropriated by Congress under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In 2006, HHS contracted with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to provide services to trafficking victims. At USCCB's insistence, the contract incorporated a restriction pursuant to which neither USCCB nor any of its subcontractors would use funding to counsel or provide contraceptive services and prescriptions or abortions to trafficking victims. The ACLU of Massachusetts (ACLUM) brought suit, alleging that HHS violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In 2012, the district court issued a declaratory judgment that HHS had violated the Establishment Clause. The federal defendants appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated on grounds of mootness, where the 2006 contract expired in 2011. Remanded with instructions to dismiss. View "ACLU of Mass. v. U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops" on Justia Law