U.S. First Circuit: December 2009 Archives
U.S. First Circuit - The FindLaw 1st Circuit Court of Appeals News and Information Blog

December 2009 Archives

Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 08-2115

In plaintiff's products liability action against manufacturers and retailers of a power saw that severed his three fingers when his hand came into contact with the saw's unguarded blade, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is vacated and remanded where: 1) district court's denial of motion to remand is affirmed as a procedural defect existing at the time of removal but cured prior to entry of judgment does not warrant reversal and remand of the matter to state court; and 2) district court's exclusion of plaintiff's expert testimony is reversed as the circumstances of the case did not justify such a sanction.   

Read Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 08-2115

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island

Decided December 30, 2009

Judges

Before: Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges, and Woodcock, District Judge

Opinion by Howard, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  Thomas More Dickinson

For Appellee:      C. Russell Bengtson, Carrol Kelly & Murphy

US v. Dyer, No. 08-1343

Sentence on a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly interpreted the trafficking cross-reference under U.S.S.G. section 2G2.4(c)(2) to include situations in which a defendant intended to exchange child pornography without any commercial purpose; 2) defendant's argument that the government must necessarily show the defendant actively and subjectively desired that others would get images of child pornography from him and that ordinary general intent does not suffice is rejected; 3) district court did not err in concluding that defendant's online conduct showed an "intent to traffic" under section 2G2.4(c)(2); and 4) defendant's argument that agent's testimony violated his Confrontation Clause rights because the grand jury testimony was never part of the record and because he had no chance to challenge that testimony during the sentencing hearing is rejected as without merit.     

Read US v. Dyer, No. 08-1343

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maine

Decided December 28, 2009

Judges

Before:  Lynch, Chief Judge, Torruella and Ripple, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Lynch, Chief Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  William S. Maddox

For Appellee:      Renée M. Bunker, Assistant United States Attorney, Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney

US v. Cannon, No. 08-1156

Defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and imposition of a 70-month sentence is affirmed as defendant's possession of the firearm had the potential to facilitate the offense of distribution because the record supports the inference that he possessed the loaded gun knowing that there were drugs in the SUV which were intended for sale. 

Read US v. Cannon, No. 08-1156

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided December 22, 2009

Judges

Before:  Torruella, Ripple, and Boudin, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Torruella, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:    David J. Barend

For Appellee:     Mark T. Quinlivan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, and Angel Kelley Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney

Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo, No. 08-1748

In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C section 1983 claim against a group of correctional officers and others claiming that, while a prisoner at a Puerto Rico correctional facility, officers subjected him to an escalating series of searches of his abdominal cavity that culminated in a forced exploratory abdominal surgery, dismissal of the complaint is vacated and remanded as to plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims against two correctional officers and the doctor who performed the surgery, as the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to allow a jury to draw the reasonable inference that each defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.     

Read Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo, No. 08-1748

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

Decided December 23, 2009

Judges

Before:  Torruella, Leval, and Lipez, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Lipez, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:    Guillermo Ramos-Luiña

For Appellee:     Rosa E. Pérez-Agosto, Maite D. Oronoz-Rodríguez, Acting Solicitor General, Ileana Oliver-Falero, Acting Deputy Solicitor General, and Leticia Casalduc-Rabell, Assistant Solicitor General

Vascular Solutions, Inc. v. Marine Polymer Tech., Inc. , No. 08-1911

In plaintiff's product disparagement claim against defendant, jury's verdict for the plaintiff and award of $4.5 million in damages for lost profits is affirmed but the jury award is remanded to limit plaintiff's recovery to $2.7 million for it to accept or insist upon a new trial as to damages.     

Read Vascular Solutions, Inc. v. Marine Polymer Tech., Inc. , No. 08-1911

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided December 23, 2009

Judges

Before:  Boudin,   Stahl, and Lipez, Circuit Judges

Per Curium Opinion

Counsel

For Appellant:    Peter D. Vogl, Todd R. Geremia and Jones Day

For Appellee:     J. Thomas Vitt, David Y. Trevor, Clifford S. Anderson and Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Schubert v. City of Springfield, No. 09-1370

In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C section 1983 case against a city and a police officer claiming his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when a police officer stopped him in front of a courthouse to investigate plaintiff's possession of a handgun, district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) district court had ample reason to conclude that officer's investigatory stop was justified at its inception; 2) district court correctly concluded that officer acted within the permissible scope of his initial Terry stop of plaintiff; 3) plaintiff failed to properly raise a Second Amendment claim in court; 4) district court correctly dismissed plaintiff's claims against the city sua sponte.     

Read Schubert v. City of Springfield, No. 09-1370

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided December 23, 2009

Judges

Before:  Lynch, Chief Judge, Stahl and Seyla, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Stahl, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:    Alan Jay Black

For Appellee:     Kevin B. Coyle

Fisher v. Kadant, Inc. , No. 09-1495

In plaintiffs' action against defendants alleging they manufactured and sold defective decking and railing products, judgment of the district court denying plaintiffs' post-judgment motion is affirmed as plaintiffs have not met the burden of showing that they are entitled to relief from the previously entered judgment as a passing request to a possible future motion to amend, contained in an opposition to a motion to dismiss, is without effect in these circumstances. 

Read Fisher v. Kadant, Inc. , No. 09-1495

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided December 22, 2009

Judges

Before:  Boudin and Seyla, Circuit Judges, Laplante, District Judge

Opinion by Seyla, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:    Kevin P. Roddy, Lynne M. Kizis, Daniel R. Lapinski, Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A.,   Scott R. Shepherd, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Nathan C. Zipperian, James E. Miller, Laurie Rubinow, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Robert T. Naumes, and Thornton & Naumes LLP

For Appellee:     James W. Prendergast, John G. Fabiano, Christopher B. Zimmerman, Adam J. Hornstine, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Costa-Urena v. Segarra, No. 07-2739

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against various officials of Puerto Rico alleging plaintiffs were terminated from career positions they held with the Puerto Rico Tourism Company in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs and district court's additional order of relief against defendant-governor is vacated in part and reversed in part and remanded where: 1) judgment on the First Amendment claim is vacated and remanded as the evidence was sufficiently mixed that it would allow a reasonable, properly instructed jury to find that the defendants had established a Mt. Healthy defense; 2) judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claim is reversed and remanded as the question of whether the plaintiffs held a protected property interest in other career positions was never squarely before the jury, and the plaintiffs failed to make the requisite efforts to establish a protected interest in other career employment with the Tourism company; 3) on remand, the executive director of the Tourism company is not entitled to qualified immunity; and 4) judgment on the spouses' derivative claim under Article 1802 is vacated and the order of reinstatement is stricken.     

Read Costa-Urena v. Segarra, No. 07-2739

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

Decided December 22, 2009

Judges

Before:  Howard, Ripple, and Seyla, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Howard, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:   Antonio Sagardia De Jesus, Secretary of Justice, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Landrón & Vera, LLP., Eileen Landrón Guardiola and Eduardo A. Vera Ramirez

For Appellee:   Marie Elsie López-Adames and González-López & López-Adames

Saysana v. Gillen, No. 09-1179

Grant of a Laotian immigrant-petitioner's request for habeas relief after being taken into custody by the ICE without bond and conclusion that BIA had misinterpreted 8 U.S.C. section 1226 are affirmed as the government has adopted an interpretation contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and in the alternative, even if the statute were ambiguous, the position of the government is not a reasonable one.     

Read Saysana v. Gillen, No. 09-1179

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided December 22, 2009

Judges

Before:  Howard, Ripple, and Seyla, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Ripple, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:    Theodore W. Atkinson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration

For Appellee:     Kerry E. Doyle, Graves & Doyle, Jeanette Kain, and Kaplan, O'Sullivan & Friedman

Int'l Sal Co., LLC v. City of Boston, No. 08-1663

In plaintiff's suit against the city of Boston over a dispute over payment for road salt that the company supplied during the winter of 2004-2005, judgment for the city is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly determined as a matter of law that no new contract was created between the city and plaintiff that would satisfy the requirements of Chapter 30B or the City Charter, and that such failure was not excused by the emergency provisions of chapter 30B; and 2) the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to relief under a theory of equitable estoppel as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court has consistently refused to allow equitable recovery on a contract that does not comply with the material requirements of public bidding laws. 

Read Int'l Sal Co., LLC v. City of Boston, No. 08-1663

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided December 21, 2009

Judges

Before:  Boudin, Gibson, and Howard, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Gibson, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:   Bruce W. Edmands, Julia B. Vacek and Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC

For Appellee:    Adam Cederbaum, William F. Sinnott, Corporation Counsel, and Scott C. Holmes, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Boston Law Department

US v. Stella, No. 08-2513

District court's application of sentence enhancements on a defendant, a registered nurse convicted of tampering with a consumer product, obtaining controlled substances by deception and subterfuge, and making false statements to federal investigators looking into her drug tampering, is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly concluded that defendant in fact served in a position of public trust and that she had abused her position of trust in applying the enhancement; 2) the district court's application of the vulnerable victim enhancement was proper; and 3) the district court did not err in splitting the counts in two groups as those who faced the risk of receiving adulterated vials and the hospital itself were sufficiently different from a skin-patch victim to take that into account at sentencing.     

Read US v. Stella, No. 08-2513

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided December 21, 2009

Judges

Before:  Lynch, Chief Judge, Stahl, Circuit Judge, and DiClerico, District Judge

Opinion by Lynch, Chief Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:    Syrie D. Fried

For Appellee:    James E. Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Randall E. Kromm, Assistant United States Attorney, and Michael K. Loucks, Acting United States Attorney

Mosher v. Nelson, No. 09-1636

In plaintiffs' civil rights action brought following the death of their son against a facility operated by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections that serves as both a prison and a mental hospital, its superintendent, and others, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendant-superintendent is entitled to qualified immunity as a reasonable official in defendant's place, given the circumstances and the legal standard, could have believed that allowing a certain practice to continue would not lead to events that would violate a patient's rights; 2) commissioner is also entitled to qualified immunity as a reasonable official in his position could have reasonably believed that staffing that met the hospital's recommendations was sufficient to avoid constitutional violations; and 3) the district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' state law claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.  

Read Mosher v. Nelson, No. 09-1636

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided December 18, 2009

Judges

Before:  Lynch, Chief Judge, Stahl, Circuit Judge, and DiClerico, District Judge

Opinion by DiClerico, District Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:      Jerrold N. Arnowitz, Arnowitz, Goldberg, and Mann, LLC

For Appellee:     Daniel G. Cromack, Assistant Attorney General, Martha Coakley, Attorney General, and Ronald F. Kehoe, Assistant Attorney General

US v. Zapata, No. 08-1554

District court's conviction of defendant for unlawful use of a communication facility in connection with a drug trafficking offense in exchange for the dismissal of a drug conspiracy charge in an indictment, and sentenced to 48 months' imprisonment, the statutory maximum is affirmed where: 1)  the sentence fell within constitutional limits as it did not exceed the statutory maximum set by Congress; 2) district court's drug quantity estimate represents a reasonable view of the record and is therefore not clearly erroneous; and 3) defendant's sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.   

Read US v. Zapata, No. 08-1554

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided December 16, 2009

Judges

Before:  Torruella, Tashima, and Lipez, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Lipez, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:      David J. Apfel, Alison V. Douglass, Elianna J. Marziani and Goodwin Proctor LLP

For Appellee:    Neil J. Gallagher, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, and Mark T. Quinlivan, Assistant United States Attorney

Haag v. US, No. 08-1355

In an action by the government against defendant-taxpayers to reduce to judgment federal income tax liabilities, dismissal of defendants' claims of improper notice based on their attorney's supposed failure to receive notice of tax liens and the IRS's improper failure to consider an innocent spouse defense, is affirmed as the claims are foreclosed by res judicata and are without merit. 

Read Haag v. US, No. 08-1355

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided December 14, 2009

Judges

Before:  Boudin, Howard and Tashima, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Tashima, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:     Timothy J. Burke

For Appellee:   John Schumann, Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice

Rederford v. US Airways, Inc., No. 09-1005

In an action  brought against an airline by a former employee alleging that the termination of her employment violated her rights under the ADA because she was suffering from lupus, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) an injunction is effective to bar plaintiff's claims as she failed to pursue her employment discrimination claims through the bankruptcy proceeding; and 2) the district court did not err in rejecting plaintiff's contention that she nonetheless should be able to litigate her claims based on the doctrines of judicial estoppel and unclean hands. 

Read Rederford v. US Airways, Inc., No. 09-1005

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island

Decided December 14, 2009

Judges

Before:  Lynch, Chief Judge, Boudin, Circuit Judge, and Saylor, DIstrict Judge

Opinion by Lynch, Chief, Judge

Counsel

For Appellant: Howard Moore, Jr., Moore & Moore

For Appellee:    Daniel E. Farrington, The Farrington Law Firm, LLC

US v. Giggy, No. 09-1542

In a case involving the sentence of a defendant for maliciously destroying by fire a building with two prior convictions for non-dwelling burglary, the government's appeal of defendant's sentence requesting that the Sentencing Commission be asked to clarify how courts ought to apply the Sentencing Guidelines to non-dwelling burglary is dismissed because there is no specification of error by the government directed to the district court's reasoning or findings, and the government's alternative request that the court consult the Commission is unpromising. 

Read US v. Giggy, No. 09-1542

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maine

Decided December 14, 2009

Judges

Before:  Lynch, Chief Judge, Torruella and Boudin, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Boudin, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:   Margaret D. McGaughey, Appellate Chief, with Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney

For Appellee:  James S. Hewes

US v. Carrasco-de-Jesus, No. 08-2463

Conviction of defendant for conspiracy to issue and use counterfeit checks is affirmed where: 1) because the government affirmatively disclaimed the waiver-of-appeal provision, there is no justification for proceeding sua sponte to inquire into its preclusive effect; 2) U.S.S.G. section 5G1.3(b) did not require the district court to impose a concurrent sentence in this case; and 3) district court's decision to run the sentence consecutively was substantively reasonable.   

Read US v. Carrasco-de-Jesus, No. 08-2463

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

Decided December 11, 2009

Judges

Before:  Seyla, Howard and Lipez, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Seyla, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  Mariángela Tirado-Váles

For Appellee:  Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Nelson Pérez-Sosa, Chief, Appellate Division, and Julia M. Meconiates, Assistant United States Attorney

Walker v. Holder, No. 08-2489

BIA's ruling denying petitioner's claim of derivative U.S. citizenship and ordering him removed from the U.S. to Jamaica is affirmed where: 1) petitioner failed to establish his claim to derivative U.S. citizenship by a preponderance of credible evidence and is not entitled to such citizenship; and 2) petitioner's claim that he will be deprived of due process of law under the Fifth Amendment if his permanent residence card is revoked retroactively without a formal proceeding is without merit as the card was not lawfully granted in the first place and petitioner received all of the process that he was due.     

Read Walker v. Holder, No. 08-2489

Appellate Information

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Decided December 11, 2009

Judges

Before:  Torruella, Seyla, and Howard, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Torruella, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:   Gerald Karikari

For Appellee:  Julia J. Tyler, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Barry J. Pettinato, Assistant Director

Rasiah v. Holder, No. 08-1398

An ethnically Tamil Sri Lankan's petition for review of a decision by the BIA denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT is denied where: 1) the BIA's recent findings have been sustained that treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanks does not rise to the level necessary to establish a pattern or practice claim that standing alone permits relief, and here, the record in this case neither compels a contrary finding nor supports petitioner's assertion that his claim was ignored; 2) the BIA did not err in denying petitioner's motion to reopen the proceedings; and 3) petitioner's claim that he is entitled to asylum because he is part of the particular social group of failed asylum seekers is barred as he failed to raise it before the IJ. 

 Read Rasiah v. Holder, No. 08-1398

Appellate Information

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Decided December 9,2009

Judges

Before:  Lynch, Chief Judge, Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Boudin, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:   Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, Law Office of Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran

For Appellee:  Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation

US v. Leon-Quinones, No. 07-1395

Defendant's conviction for robbing two banks and for carrying a firearm during and in relation to a robbery is affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence that defendant used a real firearm during the robbery of one of the banks; 2) the district court committed no clear or obvious error in allowing a witness to identify defendant; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to ask witnesses leading questions when they returned to the stand to identify defendant.    

Read US v. Leon-Quinones, No. 07-1395

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

Decided December 7, 2009

Judges

Before:  Torruella, Baldock, and Howard, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Howard, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:   Guillermo A. Macari-Grillo

For Appellee:  Vernon B. Miles, Assistant United States Attorney, Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Nelson Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division and Thomas F. Klumper, Assistant United States Attorney

In plaintiff's action challenging the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) assessment of a financial penalty against certain federal grant money used to fund Puerto Rico's child support enforcement programs, after HHS had determined that Puerto Rico had failed to satisfy data reporting requirements or meet performance benchmarks in consecutive fiscal years, district court's judgment rejecting plaintiff's contentions is affirmed where: 1) the HHS's decision not to accept and consider plaintiff's untimely PEP data to determine its fiscal year 2001 performance for incentive purposes was neither arbitrary not capricious; and 2) the HHS's interpretation of the notice provision was reasonable and entitled to deference.       

Read Admin. for Child Support of the Dep't of the Family of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Dep't of Health & Human Serv. of the US, No. 08-2169

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

Decided December 7, 2009

Judges

Before:  Torruella, Dyk, and Boudin, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Dyk, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:    Pedro J. Varela-Fernández

For Appellee:  Catherine Y. Hancock and Michael S. Raab, Attorneys, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Rosa E. Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney. As Of Counsel: David S. Cade, Acting General Counsel, Robert E. Keith, Associate General Counsel, Children, Families & Aging Division, William Alvarado-Rivera, Chief of Litigation, Children, Families & Aging Division

US v. Hersom, No. 07-2401

Defendant's conviction for maliciously destroying by fire a building owned by an institution receiving Federal financial assistance in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 844(f) is affirmed where: 1) in general, the statute should be limited to arson of property acquired, renovated, or leased using federal financial assistance; 2) section 844(f) is constitutional and it applies to defendant's conduct in this case; but 3) defendant's sentence is vacated and remanded in light of US v. Giggey to determine whether defendant's second career offender predicate is a crime of violence.     

Read US v. Hersom, No. 07-2401

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maine

Decided December 1, 2009

Judges

Before:  Torruella, Dyk, and Boudin, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Dyk, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  David Shaughnessy

For Appellee:  Margaret D. McGaughey, Appellate Chief, Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney

Lopez v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 09-1664

In minority police officers' disparate impact race claim under Title VII against a state agency that prepares and administers promotional examinations for local police officers under the state civil service system, their employers, various cities, and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), district court's denial of Eleventh Amendment immunity for the state defendants, the state of Massachusetts and a chief human resources officers of the Human Resources Division (HRD) in his official capacity, is reversed where: 1) the state defendants do not qualify as employers as that term is used in Title VII; 2) HRD cannot be deemed plaintiffs' de facto employer as it exercised no control, direct or indirect, over the factors relevant to the common law agency test; and 3) plaintiffs' alternate theories why HRD should be considered their employer under Title VII are rejected.    

Read Lopez v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 09-1664

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided December 3, 2009

Judges

Before:  Lynch, Chief Judge, Torruella and Howard, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Lynch, Chief Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:   Sookyoung Shin, Assistant Attorney General, Robert L. Quinan, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts

For Appellee:  Harold Lichten, Leah Berrault and Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

US v. Willings, No. 09-1334

In a prosecution for robbery of a federal bank through the use of a dangerous weapon, district court's imposition of a sentence designating defendant as a career offender under U.S.S.G. section 4B1.1(a) is affirmed as escape from secure custody is a crime of violence within the purview of the career offender guideline. 

Read US v. Willings, No. 09-1334

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maine

Decided December 1, 2009

Judges

Before:  Seyla and Boudin, Circuit Judges, and Laplante, District Judge

Opinion by Seyla, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  Charles K. Stephenson

For Appellee:   Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney, and Margaret D. McGaughey, Appellate Chief