Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Appellant entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute various controlled substances, including crack cocaine, and conspiracy to possess firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. On July 27, 2010, the district court sentenced Appellant to a 150-month incarcerative term. On August 3, 2010, Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), which gave the Sentencing Commission emergency authority to lower the guideline penalties for crack cocaine offenses. The Commission promulgated the new guideline amendments, which ensured that the lowered guideline ranges would for the most part be available for retroactive application. In anticipation of the November 1, 2011 effective date, Appellant filed a motion for a sentence reduction. The district court declined to reduce the sentence "in the exercise of its discretion." The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the catalogued factors plainly indicated that the court gave individualized consideration to Appellant's situation and had specific - and not unreasonable - grounds for denying a sentence reduction. View "United States v. Aponte-Guzman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of producing, and aiding and abetting in the production of, a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct using materials mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. Defendant appealed, asserting that the Government's proof as to the crime's jurisdictional element - i.e, that the materials were part of foreign or interstate commerce - rested on inadmissible hearsay, which violated his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. Defendant argued that the testimony of the Government's witness regarding the origin of a hard drive and webcam constituted inadmissible hearsay because it relied on statements contained in the labels affixed to the same. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding that the trial court did not plainly err in admitting the disputed testimony, as the witness could have relied on his own expert knowledge rather than the labels in forming an opinion about the objects' origin. View "United States v. Acevedo-Maldonado" on Justia Law

A federal grand jury in the district of Maine handed up an indictment that charged an elementary-school music teacher with two counts of transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. After a bench trial, the district court found the teacher guilty and imposed a twelve-year incarcerative sentence. The teacher appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court improperly admitted evidence of his contact with the victim during a bus trip and his inappropriate conduct with another young girl. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant forfeited his Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) claim of error; (2) the district court afforded Defendant a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine a government witness; and (3) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Raymond" on Justia Law

In this adverse employment action, Plaintiff appealed the district court's award of summary judgment to his former employer ("the Company") on his claims of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. On appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals noted inconsistencies between the Company's stated reasons for dismissal and Plaintiff's performance record at the Company, the lack of credibility that could be ascribed by a jury to certain of the Company's justifications for dismissal, and the fact that in response to arguably similar conduct by Plaintiff's younger replacement, the Company took no disciplinary action. The First Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that there was sufficient evidence presented on summary judgment from which a jury could draw the permissible inference that the Company's claimed reasons for terminating Plaintiff were pretextual and that the decision was the result of discriminatory animus. View "Acevedo-Parrilla v. Novartis Ex-Lax, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial in the United States district court, Appellant, an attorney, was convicted on bribery, extortion, and conspiracy charges stemming from his involvement in a scheme to purchase the votes of three corrupt town councilmen on two zoning matters. During the trial, the district court admitted into evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) a number of recorded statements about Appellant made by one of the councilmen to a government informant. On appeal, Appellant argued that some of these statements should have been excluded as hearsay, and challenged the admission of all the statements on constitutional grounds under the Confrontation Clause. Appellant also claimed the district court erred in calculating his sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err in admitting the challenged statements; and (2) the sentence imposed was appropriate. View "United States v. Ciresi" on Justia Law

Appellant Juan Colon-Rodriguez was convicted in 2009 on twelve counts of making false statements on Farm Service Agency (FSA) loan applications and one count of defrauding a financial institution. The district sentenced Appellant to thirty-seven months' imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed two of the challenged convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support these convictions; (2) vacated the third challenged conviction, holding that no rational jury could have concluded that the government proved all elements of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) affirmed the sentence, holding that the sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Colon-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Appellant Ivan Gonzalez-Cancel aspired to run for Governor of Puerto Rico as Partido Nuevo Progresista's ("PNP") candidate in the 2012 general election. When he applied for the job, however, PNP said he was not qualified. Gonzalez-Cancel and Jose Barbosa, a supporter of Gonzalez-Cancel's candidacy, sued PNP and Puerto Rico's Elections Commission in federal court, alleging that the decision violated their constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Appellants' claims did not fall within one of the few narrow exceptions required for a federal court's intervention in state or local electoral disputes. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the exercise of federal jurisdiction over this election dispute was not appropriate. View "Gonzalez-Cancel v. Partido Nuevo Progresista" on Justia Law

After Mark Jones repeatedly failed to pass an examination to receive a license required by his employer of all persons in that position, by a date of which he had many months' notice, he requested for the first time that the date be extended due to his medical condition. When his employer declined, and Jones declined to pursue an open alternate position at lesser pay, his employment ended. He then sued under both federal and state disability laws. The district court entered summary judgment for the employer. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, bypassing the question of whether Jones met the definition of "disability" and holding that the reasonable accommodation provisions of both statutes did not save his case. View "Jones v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted, after a four-day trial, of attempting to kill a federal witness with intent to prevent testimony and communication with law enforcement. Defendant was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, challenging several of the district court's evidentiary rulings and asserting that the prosecution's allegedly improper closing argument severely prejudiced his case. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting certain documents and testimony at trial; and (2) statements made by the prosecutor in rebuttal to defense counsel's closing argument, though perhaps improper, did not amount to plain error. View "United States v. Watson" on Justia Law

The State enacted an Act in 2011 pursuant to which health insurers were required to disclose, upon written request from a public school district, aggregate loss information pertaining to any group policies held by the district's employees. Maine Education Association Benefits Trust, which managed a statewide health insurance plan for a substantial segment of Maine's public school work force, subsequently filed suit in the district court, seeking to permanently enjoin the law prior to its enforcement. The Trust alleged that because its information constituted a confidential trade secret, the Act's disclosure requirement resulted in an uncompensated taking proscribed by the Fifth Amendment. The district court denied the Trust's motion for a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Trust did not have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its takings claim. View "Me. Educ. Ass'n Benefits Trust v. Cioppa" on Justia Law