May 31, 2026 Case Explained: Nos. 24-1474, 24-1867 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TEVIN ABERCROMBIE APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge] [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge] Before Barron, Chief Judge Rikelman and Aframe, Circuit Judges Stephen P. Super for appellant Mark T. Quinlivan, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Leah B. Foley, United States Attorney, was on brief, for December 16, 2025 Case: 24-1474 Document: 00118380349 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2025 Entry ID: 6773142 – 2 – AFRAME, Circuit Judge. A grand jury sitting in the District of Massachusetts indicted Tevin Abercrombie for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon after a Boston police officer found a loaded pistol under the front passenger seat of a car in which Abercrombie was sitting. See 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1). Abercrombie proceeded to trial, which ended in a guilty verdict. The district court denied Abercrombie’s motions for a judgment of acquittal and new trial. See Fed. R. Crim. P 29, 33. Abercrombie appeals the denial of these motions. We affirm MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL Abercrombie timely challenged the sufficiency of the evidence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.1 See United States v. Norris, 21 F.4th 188, 195 (1st Cir. 2021). In his motion, Abercrombie argued that the government’s evidence of his firearm possession demonstrated only that he was present when the police discovered the firearm under his seat, which is insufficient to permit a conviction under § 922(g)(1). The district court 1 Abercrombie also moved unsuccessfully to dismiss the indictment against him, arguing that § 922(g)(1) is facially invalid on Second Amendment grounds. On appeal, Abercrombie does not develop an argument for why § 922(g)(1) is facially invalid noting only that the validity of § 922(g)(1) is subject to “ongoing legal discussion” and that United States v. Torres-Rosario, 658 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 2011), appears inconsistent with his position Therefore, Abercrombie has waived this claim. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) Case: 24-1474 Document: 00118380349 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2025 Entry ID: 6773142 – 3 – rejected Abercrombie’s argument, concluding that the evidence was adequate for a reasonable juror to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that Abercrombie possessed the firearm We review de novo the denial of Abercrombie’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. United States v. Mendoza-Maisonet, 962 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2020). In evaluating the ruling, “we consider whether any rational factfinder could have found that the evidence presented at trial, together with all reasonable inferences viewed in the light most favorable to the government, established each element of the particular offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Ridolfi, 768 F.3d 57, 61 (1st Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Rodríguez, 735 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2013)). “[O]ur focus when considering a sufficiency challenge always remains fixed on discerning whether the jury’s guilty verdict finds support in a plausible rendition of the record, which properly includes reasonable, common sense inferences drawn from the evidence.” Id Applying these standards, we describe the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v Santonastaso, 100 F.4th 62, 68 (1st Cir. 2024). At just after 6 p.m. on April 16, 2020, the Boston Police responded to a drive-by shooting in Roxbury on Station Street between Halleck and Mindoro Streets. A few minutes after the shooting, officers communicated via radio that a navy-blue Ford Fusion was the suspect car in the Case: 24-1474 Document: 00118380349 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/16/2025 Entry ID: 6773142 – 4 – shooting.2 At that time, two Boston Police officers, Thomas Driscoll and Matthew O’Loughlin, were canvassing the area near the shooting. About two minutes after the radio notification, these officers saw a black Ford Fusion leave the parking lot of Fuentes Market on Gurney Street and turn onto Parker Street. The officers with back-up assistance, stopped the Fusion in the middle of Parker Street, believing it was the car involved in the shooting After initiating the traffic stop, Officer O’Loughlin approached the driver side of the Fusion and Officer Driscoll approached the passenger side. Dominick Douglas was driving, and Abercrombie sat in the front passenger seat. There were no backseat passengers. Abercrombie wore dark clothing with a hood over his head, glasses, a medical mask, a blue surgical glove on his right h Read →
May 31, 2026 Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ STACEY IAN HUMPHREYS v. COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF GEORGIA WARDEN, GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC AND CLASSIFICATION PRISON ____________________ Read →
May 31, 2026 Case Explained: ____________________ ALABAMA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ALABAMA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ALABAMA EDUCATION FUND GREATER BIRMINGHAM MINISTRIES ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA WILLIAM R. ADAIR, et al USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 1 of 30 2 Read →
May 31, 2026 Case Explained: ____________________ EBONI WILLIAMS DEBBIE SHOEMAKER PAULA MAYS TINA KOVELESKY SHADRIN HERRING as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and v. GERALD SHAPIRO SCOTT BRINKLEY ARGENT TRUST ARGENT TRUST COMPANY A360 HOLDINGS LLC USCA11 Case: 24-11192 Document: 76-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 1 of 18 2 Read →
May 31, 2026 Case Explained: ____________________ FRANK A. WALLS v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WARDEN, FLORIDA STATE PRISON ____________________ Read →
May 31, 2026 Case Explained: JAMES GARREY v. SHEILA CREATON KELLY, Superintendent of MCI-Concord Read →
May 31, 2026 Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VICTOR YOEL PEREZ CREMADES ____________________ Read →
May 31, 2026 Case Explained: Nos. 24-1532, 24-1614, 24-1734 WAYNE ORKIN ARTHUR ORKIN v. LISA SUE ALBERT; IAN ALBERT BOOST WEB SEO, INC Third Party Plaintiff, Appellee APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Margaret R. Guzman, U.S. District Judge] Before Montecalvo, Lynch, and Kayatta Circuit Judges Jason Tauches for appellant Irwin Schwartz, with whom BLA Schwartz PC was on brief, for Case: 24-1614 Document: 00118378286 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Entry ID: 6772054 December 11, 2025 Case: 24-1614 Document: 00118378286 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Entry ID: 6772054 – 3 – KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. These consolidated appeals arise out of disputes between two siblings, Wayne Orkin and Lisa Albert, concerning a business they conducted under the name of Boost Web SEO, Inc. Created and operated without the benefit of completed corporate formalities or even rudimentary written agreements as to roles and responsibilities, Boost Web served largely as a name under which the two siblings conducted commerce pursuant to terms defined largely by their conduct over the course of more than a decade. Now, likely to their respective detriment both sides find themselves in no-holds-barred litigation to resolve their current family dispute. The district court made much headway in trying to fit the parties’ square-pegged conduct into the round holes of the legal theories they have put forward We now affirm in part and vacate in part the district court’s judgment, with further guidance for completing the job on remand I A The following facts are not contested on appeal. Working from the Dominican Republic, Orkin owned and operated a business known as Pass Thru Merchant Services (PTMS). In 2011, PTMS entered into an independent contractor agreement with CardConnect, then known as Financial Transaction Services, LLC, a company in the Case: 24-1614 Document: 00118378286 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Entry ID: 6772054 – 4 – business of providing credit card processing services.1 Through PTMS, Orkin agreed to help solicit and develop new customers for CardConnect. In return, CardConnect agreed to pay PTMS eighty percent of CardConnect’s net income attributed to payment from companies that PTMS solicited, or “originated.” The parties refer to those payments as “residuals.” Boost Web was formed in 2013 when Orkin, still working from the Dominican Republic, needed a United States corporation to facilitate his work with PTMS Read →
May 31, 2026 Case Explained: Nos. 24-1532, 24-1614, 24-1734 WAYNE ORKIN ARTHUR ORKIN v. LISA SUE ALBERT; IAN ALBERT BOOST WEB SEO, INC Third Party Plaintiff, Appellee APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Margaret R. Guzman, U.S. District Judge] Before Montecalvo, Lynch, and Kayatta Circuit Judges Jason Tauches for appellant Irwin Schwartz, with whom BLA Schwartz PC was on brief, for Case: 24-1734 Document: 00118378286 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Entry ID: 6772054 December 11, 2025 Case: 24-1734 Document: 00118378286 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Entry ID: 6772054 – 3 – KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. These consolidated appeals arise out of disputes between two siblings, Wayne Orkin and Lisa Albert, concerning a business they conducted under the name of Boost Web SEO, Inc. Created and operated without the benefit of completed corporate formalities or even rudimentary written agreements as to roles and responsibilities, Boost Web served largely as a name under which the two siblings conducted commerce pursuant to terms defined largely by their conduct over the course of more than a decade. Now, likely to their respective detriment both sides find themselves in no-holds-barred litigation to resolve their current family dispute. The district court made much headway in trying to fit the parties’ square-pegged conduct into the round holes of the legal theories they have put forward We now affirm in part and vacate in part the district court’s judgment, with further guidance for completing the job on remand I A The following facts are not contested on appeal. Working from the Dominican Republic, Orkin owned and operated a business known as Pass Thru Merchant Services (PTMS). In 2011, PTMS entered into an independent contractor agreement with CardConnect, then known as Financial Transaction Services, LLC, a company in the Case: 24-1734 Document: 00118378286 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Entry ID: 6772054 – 4 – business of providing credit card processing services.1 Through PTMS, Orkin agreed to help solicit and develop new customers for CardConnect. In return, CardConnect agreed to pay PTMS eighty percent of CardConnect’s net income attributed to payment from companies that PTMS solicited, or “originated.” The parties refer to those payments as “residuals.” Boost Web was formed in 2013 when Orkin, still working from the Dominican Republic, needed a United States corporation to facilitate his work with PTMS Read →
