Criminal Matters, Plus Appeal in Suit Against Airport Commission re Sales of Jet Fuel - Civil Rights Law - U.S. First Circuit
U.S. First Circuit - The FindLaw 1st Circuit Court of Appeals News and Information Blog

Criminal Matters, Plus Appeal in Suit Against Airport Commission re Sales of Jet Fuel

Rectrix Aerodrome Ctrs., Inc. v. Barnstable Mun. Airport Comm'n, No. 09-2173, concerned a plaintiff's suit against an airport commission and individual defendants, claiming that it was prevented from competing with defendant in the sale of jet fuel.  In affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the court held that plaintiff's fraud claim fails as plaintiff was a commercial tenant of the airport and, given the self-service standards and lease terms, had no right and no reasonable expectation of being able to sell jet fuel at the airport.  Furthermore, plaintiff's antitrust claim is barred by the state action doctrine given the Massachusetts statute, and plaintiff's equal protection claim under section 1983 fails as well as no private entity at the airport has the privilege sought by plaintiff.     

US v. Gonzalez, No. 08-2578,  concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of a motion to suppress in a prosecution of defendant for conspiring to distribute and possessing with the intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana.  In affirming the conviction and the sentence, the court held that the test is not whether the individual actually lived in the apartment but whether she apparently had sufficient authority to consent to its search.  Also, the court held that there was probable cause to arrest defendant, that there was sufficient evidence to support the search warrant of his vehicle, and that the district court clearly did not err by crediting a witness' testimony over defendant's.  Lastly, the court held that the district court did not err in imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice after finding defendant committed perjury at the suppression hearing. 

US v. Manon, No. 08-1826, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial in a prosecution for drug related crimes.  In affirming the denial, the court held that this is not a case in which defense counsel's performance was "tantamount to non-representation" entitling defendant to Cronic's presumed prejudice standard, and rejected defendant's ineffective assistance claim in holding that defendant cannot show a probability that, but for counsel's chosen strategy, the result of the proceeding would have been different.     

Related Resources: