Lara E. Montecalvo
How Judge Montecalvo rules, drawn from 50 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Montecalvo
Lara Elizabeth Montecalvo is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Montecalvo received a commission on September 20, 2022.
Judge Montecalvo's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Montecalvo's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge Montecalvo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Cowette, she held that the suspect’s statement about waiting for a lawyer clearly invoked the right to counsel in its context.
“We accordingly find that Cowette clearly and unequivocally invoked her right to counsel under the circumstances when she stated, ‘I guess I'll wait until I have a lawyer.’”
In Garcia-Gesualdo v. Honeywell Aerospace of Puerto Rico, Inc., she reversed dismissal of Title VII and ADA claims as untimely because emails pointing to an EEOC portal document did not unambiguously communicate a final right-to-sue decision or start the ninety-day filing period.
“in order for an email that does not attach the right-to-sue letter itself to provide notice, it must ‘indicate[] without ambiguity’ that the EEOC has reached a final decision and that the claimant has ninety days to bring suit if they so wish.”
In Dor v. Bondi, she treated the federal controlled substance definition in effect at conviction as decisive for a removal petition based on an earlier state marijuana conviction.
“the relevant CSA definition is the definition that existed at the time of conviction.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Reyes-Correa, she found the sentencing court’s generic explanation inadequate for a steep upward variance.
“the given justification is generic and ‘scarcely constitutes a plausible rationale sufficient to justify a steep upward variance.’”
In United States v. Navarro-Santisteban, she affirmed revocation of supervision but vacated the resulting sentence and remanded for resentencing.
“we affirm the district court's order revoking Navarro's term of supervision, vacate the court's sentence, and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.”
In her Ford dissent, Montecalvo would have required the sentencing court to resolve disputed material facts clearly before its sentence was affirmed.
“Consequently, I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the record reliably shows that the district court implicitly resolved the material factual disputes at sentencing, as required by Rule 32(i)(3)(B).”
Cautions
In United States v. Spinks, she dismissed the sentencing appeal under the defendant’s negotiated appellate waiver.
“Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal.”
In Mojica-Ramos’s sentencing appeal, she held that the prosecutor breached a promise to recommend a guidelines sentence by framing the case as exceptional and implying greater punishment was warranted; the panel ordered resentencing before a different judge.
“The government thus impermissibly signaled to the court that Mojica should be subject to greater punishment than it had promised in agreeing to recommend a within-guidelines sentence.”
In MW Gestion v. 1Globe Capital, she affirmed denial of a second amendment after finding the shareholder had delayed raising a known claim while waiting for other litigation.
“the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying MW Gestion leave to amend its complaint”
In her Bannon partial dissent, Montecalvo concluded that disputed evidence and credibility questions concerning the shooting should have prevented summary judgment on the deadly-force claims.
“Plaintiff has put forth sufficient evidence, both regarding the events leading up to the shooting and as to the witnesses' credibility, that a reasonable factfinder could find in her favor.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment and denial of the Rule 59(e) motion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Vaquerano's sentence.”
“we vacate Reyes's thirty-six-month sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.”
“we affirm the district court's order revoking Navarro's term of supervision, vacate the court's sentence, and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we vacate in part and affirm in part the decision of the district court on Cowette's motion to suppress and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Draft for Judge Montecalvo with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Montecalvo, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Montecalvo's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace