The First Circuit decided mostly criminal cases and a case brought by police officers against the town for violating the FLSA.
In US v. DePierre, No. 08-2101, the court faced a challenge to a conviction for selling drugs to a government informant. The court rejected defendant's wrongful inducement argument that he was "induced" into selling crack cocaine the second time after he initially sold cocaine powder the first time. The court also rejected defendant's wrongful manipulation sentencing factor argument and held that the jury instructions and the verdict accorded the precedent, and as such, the mandatory minimum sentence was properly imposed.
In US v. Perez-Melendez, No. 08-2225, the court faced a challenge to defendants' convictions for drug related offenses. In reversing the conviction, the court concluded that the government failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants knew or were willfully blind to the fact that the pallets of reams of paper they transported contained a controlled substance.
In US v. St. Pierre, No. 09-1237, the court addressed a challenge to a conviction for tax evasion and obstruction. The court affirmed the conviction and held that the district court properly invoked Rule 403 to exclude defendant's attempt to introduce expert testimony as to the standard of care owed to her by her accountants as this would have been more confusing to the jury than probative. The court also held that the defendant was not unduly limited in cross-examining the government's witnesses against her.
In Restucci v. Bender, No. 09-2271, the court addressed the isse of whether a claim based on wrongful denial of parole is considered a "second or successive" petition for purposes of 28 U.S.C. section 2244(b). The court held that such claims are not "second or successive" and therefore is not subject to the section 2244(b) gatekeeping requirements.
Lastly, in Calvao v. Town of Framingham, No. 009-1648, the court addressed a police officers' challenge to the district court's dismissal of their suit against the town, claiming that the town failed to pay enough overtime in violation of the FLSA. The court upheld that district court's grant of partial summary judgment in holding tha the town met the eligibility requirements for the public safety exception and concluded that the town was not required to notify affected employees before establishing a valid work period under section 207(k).
- Full text of US v. DePierre
- Full text of US v. Perez-Melendez
- Full text of US v. St. Pierre
- Full text of Restucci v. Bender
- Full text of Calvao v. Town of Framingham