May 31, 2026 Case Explained: ____________________ ELENA MUKHINA v. WALMART, INC ____________________ Read →
May 31, 2026 Case Explained: ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ERIKA KELLEY DAY ____________________ Read →
May 31, 2026 Case Explained: ____________________ AILEEN MULLIN v. SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ____________________ Read →
May 31, 2026 Case Explained: EDWIN DAVID RAMOS-HERNANDEZ; SHEYLY CRISTABEL LOPEZ; D.Z.R.L v. PAMELA J. BONDI Attorney General Read →
May 31, 2026 Case Explained: STEPHEN SCAER; BETHANY R. SCAER v. CITY OF NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE JAMES W. DONCHESS, Mayor, City of Nashua, New Hampshire; JENNIFER L. DESHAIES, Risk Manager, City of Nashua, New Hampshire Read →
May 31, 2026 Case Explained: Nos. 24-1475 24-1540 24-1541 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WILLIAM W. ROBERTSON and DANIEL J. GRIFFIN APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Margaret R. Guzman, U.S. District Judge] Before Gelpí, Lynch, and Thompson Circuit Judges William W. Fick, with whom Daniel N. Marx, Amy Barsky, and Fick & Marx, LLP, were on brief, for appellant Robertson Thomas M. Hoopes, with whom Jason M. Strojny and Libby Hoopes Brooks & Mulvey, P.C., were on brief, for appellant Griffin Randall E. Kromm, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Leah B. Foley, United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee December 19, 2025 Case: 24-1541 Document: 00118382225 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2025 Entry ID: 6774137 – 2 – THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Between 2015 and 2017 Lieutenant Daniel Griffin and Sergeant William Robertson of the Massachusetts State Police (“MSP”) clocked hundreds of hours of overtime to the tune of practically $100,000. (And that’s not counting the troopers they supervised.) The problem? A lot of that time, they weren’t actually working. Instead, they routinely showed up late or cut out early yet still charged for the whole shift. They also began overtime- specific tasks during their normal work hours but still billed like they had worked a separate overtime shift later in the day an impermissible form of double-dipping. And they regularly encouraged their subordinates to do all that, too The Feds were none too pleased once they caught wind of this scheme, because the money that these troopers (and their supervisees) stole came from federal grants funding overtime hours for law enforcement initiatives to promote highway safety. (Think DUI checkpoints and “Click-It-Or-Ticket” programs.) So Robertson and Griffin were charged with a host of fraud-based federal crimes After an extended trial featuring more than twenty testifying witnesses, a jury convicted the duo of all the charges: wire fraud, theft of federal funds, and conspiracy to commit the latter. (And on the brink of trial, Griffin separately pled guilty to a set of tax falsification charges and some unrelated wire fraud charges.) The district court then sentenced Robertson and Griffin Case: 24-1541 Document: 00118382225 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2025 Entry ID: 6774137 – 3 – to some time behind bars, and it ordered each defendant to fork over what they made during the scheme (and some more) via substantial restitution and forfeiture orders On this omnibus appeal, the pair protests the propriety of the prior proceedings practically soup-to-nuts. Mostly, we affirm, though with a bit of disquietude about the district court’s tone during Robertson’s sentencing (more on that later). But we vacate and remand one narrow issue: the forfeiture order against Griffin. Read on as we explain what led to this mega-appeal We’ll start with Griffin and Robertson’s time with the MSP, their fraud(s), the investigation, and the proceedings below HOW WE GOT HERE A. The Defendants We kick things off with a bit about our defendants’ histories, both personal and professional.1 A Massachusetts native 1 To start our recitation of the facts, we note a wrinkle complicating our presentation of the record. One of Robertson’s claims is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and “we typically recite those facts relevant to sufficiency claims” in “the light most favorable to the verdict.” United States v Burgos-Montes, 786 F.3d 92, 99 (1st Cir. 2015). But that’s not the only challenge here, and for others (like the constitutional challenge or the facts underlaying the application of a sentencing enhancement), we’re instead supposed to take a more “balanced” treatment where we “objectively view the evidence of record.” Id (cleaned up). Yet we can’t “simultaneously recite the facts in both manners,” so we’ll instead “limit our initial summary of this lengthy record to those details essential to framing the issues on appeal.” Id. Further complicating this is (1) that the district court is afforded some discretion in factfinding for sentencing Case: 24-1541 Document: 00118382225 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/19/2025 Entry ID: 6774137 – 4 – with a blue-collar upbringing and a college education, Griffin joined the MSP in 1986 at age 23. In 2011, he was promoted to Lieutenant, a rank he held until his retirement in 2020. And from 2011 to 2019, he led MSP’s Traffic Programs Section (“TPS”), the division whose conduct gave rise to this case. (More on TPS shortly.) While at MSP, Griffin also founded a private security company. (More on that company shortly, too.) Robertson, also a Massachusetts native, joined the force in 1986 (the same Read →
