In Da Silva Neto v. Holder, a Brazilian citizen who entered the U.S. without inspection sought cancellation of removal after a 2006 incident in which he damaged property at his estranged wife's home, leading to a conviction for malicious destruction of property under Massachusetts law. The Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that this offense constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, barring the petitioner from establishing the good moral character required for relief. The First Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that the BIA's determination was reasonable because the Massachusetts statute requires intentional acts of gratuitous or excessive violence hostile to the property owner. The court applied deferential review to the agency's interpretation of the INA rather than conducting de novo analysis of whether the conduct was base or depraved.
This case involved a securities fraud claim under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, in which Anima alleged that NeuroMetrix made misleading statements by failing to disclose material information about reimbursement risks for its products. The court had previously affirmed dismissal of the complaint, and it now denies Anima's petition for rehearing en banc, which argued inconsistency with the Supreme Court's recent Matrixx decision on materiality. The court reasoned that Matrixx focused on when undisclosed facts are material and reaffirmed that possession of material non-public information does not automatically create a duty to disclose, whereas here the company's statements had acknowledged risks and grown more specific as facts developed, without the type of misleading positive projections seen in Matrixx.
The case involved William Foote, who was denied reappointment by the Bedford town council to an unpaid advisory recreation commission after he publicly criticized the council's plans for a community park project and funding methods. Foote sued the town and several council members under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the decision violated his First Amendment rights, along with related state-law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the First Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that the commission position involved policymaking advice to the council, so under the Elrod/Branti and Pickering frameworks, the defendants' interest in effective government and policy compatibility outweighed Foote's speech interests when his public criticisms demonstrated a lack of alignment with the council's views.
In this case, shareholders of NeuroMetrix, Inc. brought a consolidated securities fraud action against the company and several officers, alleging violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act based on misleading statements about the sustainability of insurance reimbursement codes for the company's NC-Stat medical device and the associated risks to revenue and stock value. The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b), finding no actionable misstatements. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint's allegations, even when taken as true, failed to identify any materially misleading statements under the applicable legal standards for securities fraud claims.
In this case, Ricardo Rodriguez pled guilty to federal firearms offenses after selling sawed-off guns to an undercover officer in 2006. At his 2009 sentencing, the district court applied the then-current Sentencing Guidelines, which included a four-level trafficking enhancement added after Rodriguez's crimes, resulting in a higher recommended range and a 108-month prison term. Rodriguez appealed, arguing that using the post-offense Guidelines violated ex post facto principles. The First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the court should have used the Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense under established policy for advisory Guidelines calculations, without reaching the constitutional question. The court found this error plain and prejudicial on the record presented.
The case involved Myriam Gómez-González and her husband suing her former employer, Rural Opportunities, Inc., alleging violations of Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, and ERISA, as well as Puerto Rico law claims for wrongful discharge and mental distress, based on her termination and alleged failure to accommodate a preexisting back condition. The district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on all federal claims and dismissed the state claims without prejudice. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence showing that the termination was pretextual, that the employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation, or that the employer was liable for any denial of disability benefits.
