Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Jose Pedro Garcia was convicted of possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of a mixture containing fentanyl. He pled guilty to the charge. While awaiting sentencing, Garcia assaulted another detainee. This incident led the probation officer to determine that Garcia was not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, a determination the Government adopted. The district court agreed and denied any reduction for acceptance of responsibility.Garcia appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the Government breached the plea agreement by not recommending a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Garcia did not raise this issue in the district court, so the appellate court reviewed for plain error. Garcia contended that the plea agreement required the Government to move for a three-level reduction under § 3E1.1. However, the plea agreement only obligated the Government to move for the third point of reduction under § 3E1.1(b) if the district court awarded the initial two-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a). The agreement did not restrict the Government's arguments regarding the initial two-level reduction.The Fifth Circuit found that the Government's argument against the reduction was consistent with a reasonable understanding of the plea agreement and did not constitute a breach. Since Garcia did not demonstrate that the Government breached the plea agreement and did not argue that the appeal waiver in his plea agreement was invalid, the court dismissed the appeal. The court did not consider Garcia’s remaining arguments challenging the denial of the reduction under § 3E1.1. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Commodities & Minerals Enterprise, Ltd. (CME) and CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A. (FMO). CME sought to confirm a New York Convention arbitration award of $187.9 million against FMO. FMO opposed the confirmation, alleging that CME procured the underlying contract through fraud, bribery, and corruption, arguing that enforcing the award would violate U.S. public policy. The district court confirmed the award, ruling that FMO was barred from challenging the confirmation on public policy grounds because it failed to seek vacatur within the three-month time limit prescribed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially reviewed the case. CME moved to confirm the arbitration award in December 2019. FMO opposed the confirmation nearly two years later, citing public policy concerns. The district court granted CME’s motion, explaining that FMO was barred from opposing confirmation on public policy grounds due to its failure to seek vacatur within the FAA’s three-month time limit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that, based on its recent en banc decision in Corporación AIC, SA v. Hidroélectrica Santa Rita S.A., FMO should have been allowed to assert its public policy defense in opposition to confirmation. The court clarified that the grounds for vacating a New York Convention arbitration award are those set forth in U.S. domestic law, specifically Chapter 1 of the FAA, which does not recognize public policy as a ground for vacatur. However, the court affirmed the district court’s confirmation of the award, concluding that FMO’s public policy defense failed on the merits because it attacked the underlying contract, not the award itself. View "Commodities & Minerals Enterprise, Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco C.A." on Justia Law

Josh and Mackie were partners in a marijuana business, Culta, LLC, in Maryland. Josh temporarily relinquished his ownership due to concerns about a past misdemeanor affecting their license application, with an agreement to be reinstated later. However, Mackie prevented Josh from rejoining. Josh sued Mackie and Trellis Holdings Maryland, Inc. (Trellis), Mackie’s company, for breach of contract. The district court found Mackie and Trellis liable and awarded Josh $6.4 million in damages. Mackie and Trellis did not appeal or pay the judgment.Josh sought to enforce the judgment. The district court ordered Mackie and Trellis to sell Trellis’s equity in Culta and turn over the proceeds to Josh, and to avoid devaluing the equity until the sale. Mackie and Trellis appealed, arguing for the first time that enforcing the judgment would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and that the district court lacked authority under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure (C.R.C.P.) 69(g). They also moved the district court to reconsider the original judgment, which was denied, leading to a second appeal. The appeals were consolidated.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the original judgment, rejecting Mackie and Trellis’s argument that Josh lacked standing. The court found that Josh had standing as he suffered an injury from the breach of contract, caused by Mackie and Trellis, and the damages awarded were redressable. The court also held that the district court had authority under C.R.C.P. 69(g) to issue the judgment enforcement order, as a charging order was not the exclusive remedy and Mackie and Trellis had sufficient control over Trellis’s equity.However, the Tenth Circuit vacated the judgment enforcement order due to concerns that it might require Mackie and Trellis to violate federal drug laws, and remanded the case for further proceedings to address these public policy concerns. View "Bartch v. Barch" on Justia Law

Dakota Bail Bonds (DBB) posted bonds for two criminal defendants who violated their conditions of release but did not fail to appear in court. The circuit court forfeited the bonds, interpreting SDCL 23A-43-21 as requiring forfeiture for any material breach of release conditions. DBB requested the forfeiture be set aside under SDCL 23A-43-22, arguing their surety only guaranteed court appearances, not compliance with all conditions of release. The circuit court denied this request and entered orders forfeiting the bonds.The circuit court, part of the Second Judicial Circuit in Lincoln County, South Dakota, determined that the statutory language did not distinguish between types of bonds and required forfeiture for any breach of release conditions. The court also declined to set aside the forfeiture, reasoning that justice did not warrant such action merely because the defendants complied with court appearance requirements but violated other conditions. Consequently, the court entered judgments of default against DBB.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the surety bond's language. The Supreme Court found that DBB's surety bond explicitly guaranteed only the defendants' court appearances, not compliance with all conditions of release. Since the defendants did not fail to appear in court, there was no violation of the condition guaranteed by DBB. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court should have set aside the forfeiture under SDCL 23A-43-22 and vacated the judgment of default against DBB. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the judgment of default. View "State v. Dakota Bail Bonds" on Justia Law

The defendant, Yavier Mojica-Ramos, was on supervised release after serving a five-year sentence for possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. In 2020, he was arrested for unlawfully possessing two modified machine guns, discovered when police officers were enforcing a COVID-19 mask mandate. Mojica entered into a plea agreement in 2021, promising to plead guilty to the unlawful possession charge. The agreement required both parties to request a sentence within the guidelines range, later calculated as thirty-seven to forty-six months.The government filed a sentencing memorandum requesting an upper-end guidelines sentence of forty-six months, attaching photos and a video from Mojica's cellphone as evidence of his involvement in other criminal behavior. Mojica filed a motion to compel specific performance of the plea agreement, alleging that the government breached the agreement by advocating for an upwardly variant sentence. The district court denied Mojica's motion.The district court imposed an upwardly variant seventy-two-month sentence for the unlawful possession charge, rejecting the parties' recommendations for a guidelines sentence. Immediately following this, the court held a supervised release revocation hearing and issued a sixty-month statutory maximum revocation sentence to run consecutively to Mojica's unlawful possession sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that the prosecutor's sentencing advocacy did not conform to the meticulous standards of performance required by Mojica's entrance into the plea agreement. The court vacated Mojica's sentences for unlawful possession and revocation, remanding the cases for resentencing before a different judge. View "United States v. Mojica-Ramos" on Justia Law

The case involves Robert James McCabe, a former sheriff of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, who was convicted of carrying out fraud and bribery schemes with contractors concerning medical and food services for prisoners in the Norfolk Jail. Over 20 years, McCabe provided favored contractors with inside information about competing bids for the Jail’s contracts, altered and extended contracts for their benefit, and received various things of substantial value in return. McCabe was convicted of 11 federal offenses, including charges of conspiracy, honest services mail fraud, Hobbs Act extortion, and money laundering. He was sentenced to 144 months in prison, plus supervised release.McCabe appealed his convictions and sentences, raising four contentions of error. He argued that his trial was unfairly conducted before a trial of a co-defendant, that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements, that the jury instructions were incorrect, and that the court wrongly applied an 18-level sentencing enhancement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected all of McCabe’s contentions and affirmed his convictions and sentences. View "US v. McCabe" on Justia Law

Eghbal Saffarinia, a former high-ranking official in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of the Inspector General (HUD-OIG), was required by federal law to file annual financial disclosure forms detailing most of his financial liabilities over $10,000. One of Saffarinia’s responsibilities was the allocation of HUD-OIG’s information technology contracts. An investigation revealed that Saffarinia had repeatedly falsified his financial disclosure forms and failed to disclose financial liabilities over $10,000. The investigation also revealed that one of the persons from whom Saffarinia had borrowed money was the owner of an IT company that had been awarded HUD-OIG IT contracts during the time when Saffarinia had near-complete power over the agency operation.Saffarinia was indicted on seven counts, including three counts of obstruction of justice. A jury convicted Saffarinia on all seven counts, and the District Court sentenced him to a year and a day in federal prison, followed by one year of supervised release. Saffarinia appealed his conviction, arguing that the law under which he was convicted did not extend to alleged obstruction of an agency’s review of financial disclosure forms because the review of these forms is insufficiently formal to fall within the law’s ambit. He also argued that the evidence presented at trial diverged from the charges contained in the indictment, resulting in either the constructive amendment of the indictment against him or, in the alternative, a prejudicial variance. Finally, Saffarinia challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found no basis to overturn Saffarinia’s conviction. The court held that the law under which Saffarinia was convicted was intended to capture the sorts of activity with which Saffarinia was charged. The court also found that the government neither constructively amended Saffarinia’s indictment nor prejudicially varied the charges against him. Finally, the court found that the evidence presented at Saffarinia’s trial was sufficient to support his conviction. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "USA v. Saffarinia" on Justia Law

The case involves Ángel Cruz-Agosto, who was convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm following a guilty plea. Cruz-Agosto was arrested after police officers observed him pull a pistol from his waistband and drop it on the floor of his vehicle. At the time of his arrest, Cruz-Agosto was serving a term of federal supervised release. He entered into a plea agreement with the government, which calculated a Total Offense Level of nineteen and agreed to jointly recommend a sentence of thirty-seven months' imprisonment.The district court, however, found that the recommended sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the offense and sentenced Cruz-Agosto to seventy-one months' imprisonment, followed by a three-year term of supervised release. The court also held a sentencing hearing for the revocation of Cruz-Agosto's supervised release, sentencing him to an additional eighteen months' imprisonment to be served consecutively.Cruz-Agosto appealed his sentences, focusing on an alleged breach of the plea agreement by the prosecutor at sentencing. He argued that the government failed to argue for a concurrent sentence or a maximum of a four-month consecutive sentence on the revocation, and failed to correct a perceived error made by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the sentences given by the district court. The court found that the government did not breach the plea agreement, as it had fulfilled its obligation to jointly recommend a sentence of thirty-seven months' imprisonment. The court also found that Cruz-Agosto failed to show that any alleged error by the government affected his substantial rights or the outcome of the proceedings. View "United States v. Cruz-Agosto" on Justia Law

The case involves Alejandro Cortés-López, who was serving a 24-month prison term after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. Cortés-López had entered into a plea agreement with the government, admitting to a fraudulent financial scheme that solicited residents in Puerto Rico to invest in short-term, high-interest loans in the Dominican Republic. The plea agreement stipulated a total offense level (TOL) of 18, which, combined with a criminal history category of I, suggested a guidelines sentencing range (GSR) of 27-33 months' imprisonment. However, both parties agreed to jointly request a variant sentence of 24 months of probation.The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated a higher TOL due to the financial fraud scheme resulting in more than $5.4 million in losses to the investors. Cortés-López objected to these enhancements, but the probation office maintained that the higher loss amount and additional enhancement were correct. At the sentencing hearing, the government acknowledged the PSR's calculation but stated it was standing by its plea agreement recommendation of 24 months of probation. The district court, however, imposed a sentence of 24 months' imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release and $5.4 million in restitution.Cortés-López appealed, arguing that the government breached the plea agreement by supporting the higher TOL calculated in the PSR and failing to advocate meaningfully for the agreed-upon 24-month probation sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed, finding that the government's conduct at the sentencing hearing was a breach of the plea agreement. The court vacated Cortés-López's sentence and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Cortes-Lopez" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of grocery store owner-operators and their related company, Anchor Mobile Food Markets, Inc. (AMFM), who sued Onex Partners IV, Onex Corporation, Anthony Munk, and Matthew Ross (collectively, Onex) for violations of Missouri common law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The owner-operators had invested in the discount grocery chain Save-A-Lot and its independent licensee program, which turned out to be a disastrous investment. They alleged that Onex, which had acquired Save-A-Lot, had fraudulently induced them into the investment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri had granted summary judgment to Onex. The court found that the owner-operators had signed multiple contractual releases and anti-reliance disclaimers before opening their stores, which barred their claims. The owner-operators and AMFM argued that these releases and disclaimers were fraudulently induced.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the owner-operators failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that they were fraudulently induced to enter the releases. The court also found that the releases were valid and barred the owner-operators' claims. The court further found that AMFM's claims against Onex failed, as neither Save-A-Lot nor Onex had contracted with AMFM. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the owner-operators and AMFM's request for leave to amend their complaint. View "SBFO Operator No. 3, LLC v. Onex Corporation" on Justia Law