Kermit Victor Lipez

The case involved defendant José Valdivia, who was convicted after a jury trial in the District of Puerto Rico on charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to import one or more kilograms of heroin, based on his role in a drug trafficking operation linked to an Aruba-based organization that used couriers and cruise ship employees to move heroin into Puerto Rico. Valdivia appealed on multiple grounds, including alleged violations of the Speedy Trial Act, improper judicial comments and jury instructions, admission of hearsay and overview testimony, improper expert testimony by a fact witness, denial of motions to suppress foreign wiretap evidence, and errors in applying the sentencing guidelines. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and 210-month sentence, holding after review that the district court did not commit reversible error on any of the claims raised. The opinion addressed the factual background of the operation, pretrial delays, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing calculations without finding prejudice or abuse of discretion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a qui tam action under the False Claims Act alleging that defendants Brigham and Women's Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, and affiliated researchers submitted a grant application to the National Institute on Aging for Alzheimer's disease research that contained statements based on falsified data and misrepresented the use of blinded, reliable methodologies. The relator, Kenneth Jones, also claimed the defendants knowingly failed to investigate and report scientific misconduct as required by NIH regulations. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, the First Circuit vacated the ruling, holding that the district court abused its discretion by excluding or improperly evaluating expert testimony and erred by not applying the summary judgment standard, which revealed genuine issues of material fact regarding the falsity of statements in the application and the defendants' knowledge.

criminal lawhealthcare

The case involved the appeal of Cruz Roberto Ramos-González's conviction for possession with intent to distribute over 500 grams of cocaine after police seized blocks of a substance from a truck he allegedly abandoned during a traffic stop. The district court permitted a forensic chemist to testify about the results of a drug analysis performed by a colleague who was unavailable due to illness, despite the testifying chemist having no personal involvement in the testing. The First Circuit vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that this violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights because the testimony was not adequately corroborated by other evidence sufficient to prove the substance was cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, debtors Luis Soto-Rios and Brenda Tosado-Arbelo, who had executed three mortgage deeds in favor of Banco Popular de Puerto Rico in 2004 and 2005, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy nearly three years later while the deeds remained unrecorded due to a registry backlog. During the bankruptcy proceedings, the debtors initiated an adversary action seeking to avoid the mortgages under the automatic stay, the trustee's strong-arm power, and rules against preferential transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(a), 544(a), and 547(b). The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the bank, finding that exceptions under §§ 362(b)(3) and 546(b)(1)(A) applied because the bank had presented the deeds pre-petition, and that no preferential transfer occurred as the relevant acts predated the 90-day lookback period; the district court affirmed. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the bank's pre-petition presentment created a sufficient property interest and that the debtors failed to establish the elements of a preferential transfer under § 547(e)(1)(A).

propertyprocedure

The case involved parents suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after their three-year-old child was seriously injured by a projectile thrown from a lawnmower operated by a contractor at a childcare center on federal property, where both the childcare provider and lawn maintenance company operated under contracts with the General Services Administration. The district court dismissed the FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the independent contractor defense and dismissed the supplemental Puerto Rico law claims. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal but held that the discretionary function exception applied instead, reasoning that the government had discretion to delegate responsibility for safety and coordination of the contractors' activities, immunizing its decision from liability under the FTCA.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

The case involved Otto Amilcar Gonzalez-Ruano, a Guatemalan national who entered the United States unlawfully in 1989 and sought special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) after being placed in removal proceedings. An Immigration Judge denied the application, finding that Gonzalez-Ruano's 1997 Massachusetts convictions for assault and battery and willful destruction of property constituted crimes involving moral turpitude, which triggered a stricter eligibility standard that he failed to meet, and that discretionary relief was unwarranted due to his criminal history and violations of protective orders. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The First Circuit denied the petition in part, holding that there was no legal or constitutional error in the agency's determinations regarding the convictions or the exercise of discretion, and dismissed the remainder for lack of jurisdiction over the discretionary decision.

immigrationcriminal law

Redondo Construction Corporation sued Puerto Rico government officials and agencies, alleging that they breached pre-existing settlement agreements by retroactively applying a new statute, thereby impairing contract obligations in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Contracts Clause and committing breaches under Puerto Rico law. The agreements had resolved disputes over Redondo's temporary debarment from public contracts following its guilty plea in a federal criminal case. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Contracts Clause claim, finding no constitutional impairment because Redondo could still pursue damages for any breach, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Puerto Rico law claims. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the federal claim but held that the district court abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction over the state claims, given the advanced stage of litigation and the straightforward nature of the remaining issues. The court remanded for further proceedings on the breach of contract claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, an employee sued his employer under ERISA after being denied long-term disability benefits under a company plan. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, ruling that the claim for benefits was untimely under a one-year limitations period added to the plan in 2004. On appeal, the First Circuit reversed, holding that equitable tolling applied because the employer failed to notify the employee of the new limitations period or his right to sue, which materially misled him and prevented timely filing. The court found the employee had been reasonably diligent in pursuing his claim despite the lack of notice. The case was remanded for proceedings on the merits.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the United States appealing a district court's refusal to hold Puerto Rico in contempt for failing to comply with staffing requirements in juvenile correctional facilities under a 1997 settlement agreement and subsequent 2009 remedial order aimed at remedying dangerous conditions. The Commonwealth had moved under the Prison Litigation Reform Act to terminate or modify the prospective relief, which suspended the order after 180 days. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal as unripe, holding that contempt sanctions would be a forward-looking remedy for an order not presently in effect and that review risked issuing an advisory opinion contingent on the district court's future ruling on the PLRA motion.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In this case, defendants Juan Meises and Jose Reyes-Guerrero were convicted by a jury of a single count of drug conspiracy after participating in a reverse sting operation involving a sham cocaine transaction and $100,000 in cash. On appeal, they challenged their convictions on grounds including improper overview testimony by a lead law enforcement agent, admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement implicating them, and exclusion of an audiotape from the day of their arrests; one defendant also argued insufficient evidence. The First Circuit held that the overview testimony and hearsay statement were improperly admitted, constituting significant errors that required vacating the convictions and remanding for a new trial, while rejecting the sufficiency challenge.

criminal lawprocedure

Sylvio Baltodano, a non-Puerto Rican employee, sued Merck Sharp & Dohme and his supervisor Nilda Vazquez, alleging that his termination was a pretext for national-origin discrimination, that it lacked just cause in breach of his employment contract, and that it involved defamation. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on an incomplete record. The First Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded, concluding that summary judgment was premature because Merck had not fully participated in discovery, depriving Baltodano of a fair opportunity to develop evidence. The court also held that the defamation claim was improperly dismissed sua sponte without any motion or briefing from the parties.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a citizen suit under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) brought by Chico Service Station and José Chico against Sol Puerto Rico to compel cleanup of soil and groundwater contamination from leaking underground storage tanks at a former gas station in Puerto Rico. The district court dismissed the suit under the Burford abstention doctrine due to ongoing parallel proceedings before the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board and related commonwealth court cases. On appeal, the First Circuit held that abstention was inappropriate, vacated the dismissal, and remanded the case. The court reasoned that abstention from RCRA citizen suits is rarely justified given the strong federal interests involved and Congress's specific limits on when such suits are barred, and that no exceptional circumstances existed here. The court also rejected arguments that the suit was moot or barred by diligent prosecution provisions.

environmentprocedure

The case involved José E. Rivera-Gonzalez, who was charged with conspiring to distribute cocaine near a public housing project and pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. After unsuccessfully attempting to withdraw his plea three times, he appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for being on probation at the time of the offense, and that his sentence was unreasonable. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the plea withdrawal motions and no error in the sentencing calculation, while dismissing the ineffective assistance claim as procedurally flawed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a transitory employee of the Puerto Rico Tourism Company who sued her supervisor after being denied a permanent position, claiming the decision was based on her political affiliation and protected speech activities in violation of the First Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After a jury trial, the plaintiff prevailed on both claims and received compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment as to the speech retaliation claim and compensatory damages, reversed as to the political discrimination claim, vacated the punitive damages award, and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages unless the plaintiff agreed to reduce the award from $1,000,000 to $500,000.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

Carmen Rodríguez-García, a career municipal employee in Caguas, Puerto Rico, sued Mayor William Miranda-Marín, Vice Mayor Wilfredo Puig, and the municipality, alleging that her transfer from the Public Works Department to the Office of Federal Funds was in retaliation for her sworn testimony before the Puerto Rico Government Ethics Office regarding the improper use of government resources for political activities, in violation of the First Amendment and Puerto Rico law. After a prior appeal remanded the case for a new trial against Miranda-Marín and the municipality, a jury found in Rodríguez-García's favor and awarded $350,000 in compensatory damages. The First Circuit affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence supported the retaliation finding, that Rodríguez-García had not waived her related state-law claims, and that the trial court properly denied double damages under Puerto Rico law. The court rejected the defendants' challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, and post-trial rulings.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

This case involved the conviction of Felix Gonzalez-Melendez for aiding and abetting a carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119, stemming from his role in planning the armed taking of his employer's vehicle to intimidate a new manager. On appeal, the defendant raised challenges to evidentiary rulings, the handling of a jury note, and the nondisclosure of certain witness statements under the Jencks Act, while the government conceded error in the sentencing process. The First Circuit affirmed the conviction, finding that any trial irregularities did not amount to prejudicial error affecting the outcome. However, it vacated the sentence because the district court failed to afford the defendant his right of allocution under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 before imposing punishment, and remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved William Merlino and codefendants who were charged with conspiring and attempting to rob an armored car facility in violation of the Hobbs Act and with related firearms offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), including one count involving a hand grenade. After a jury convicted Merlino on all counts, the district court granted him a judgment of acquittal on the grenade-related § 924(c) count, finding the cooperating witness's testimony insufficient to support it, while denying acquittal on the other counts. Merlino appealed his remaining convictions and sentence, and the government cross-appealed the acquittal. The First Circuit affirmed Merlino's convictions and sentence on the non-grenade counts, holding that he was not denied his right to testify and that his sentence was proper under Booker. On the cross-appeal, the court reversed the acquittal on the grenade count, concluding that the witness's testimony was consistent, uncontradicted, and unequivocal, so the district court abused its discretion in granting acquittal or a conditional new trial.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute between Citibank Global Markets (Smith Barney) and the estate and corporations of client Luis Fernandez Ramirez over alleged overcharges of brokerage commissions on multiple accounts. After discovering irregularities, Smith Barney offered a settlement payment of approximately $950,000, which Fernandez accepted following review of supporting calculations, but the estate later filed a counterclaim challenging the agreement. The district court dismissed the counterclaim, and the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the settlement was binding under Puerto Rico law as an agreement between sophisticated parties with no evidence of fraud or nondisclosure warranting reformation or rescission. The court also affirmed denial of attorneys' fees under Puerto Rico rules for a non-frivolous claim and declined to remand for Rule 11 findings, as the record showed no basis for sanctions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a lawyer and his firm seeking coverage under three successive professional liability insurance policies after a state court entered judgment against them in a 2005 lawsuit alleging failure to pay attorney fees and deceptive practices. The policies, issued by NCMIC, Greenwich, and Liberty for different one-year periods, were all "claims made and reported" policies that required a claim to be both first made against the insured and reported to the insurer during the policy term. Gargano reported the claim after the relevant periods had ended. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that the policies' explicit requirements were not met, so there was no coverage and thus no viable claims for breach of contract or violations of Massachusetts deceptive practices laws.

business & regulatory

In United States v. Stepanian, the defendant appealed his 72-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft for a scheme involving the skimming of debit and credit card data from Stop & Shop customers to make unauthorized withdrawals. The First Circuit considered whether individuals reimbursed for their losses qualified as victims under the multiple victim enhancement in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines section 2B1.1(b)(2), and it held that they did, supporting the six-level increase for crimes affecting more than 250 victims. The court further determined that the district court did not err by assigning substantial weight to the guideline range or by imposing the mandatory two-year consecutive term for the aggravated identity theft conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. The judgment was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure