Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The State appealed from a decision of the district court holding that the State improperly made income tax, FICA tax, and other deductions from a Title VII judgment for back and front pay in favor of plaintiff. The court held that such Title VII awards constituted "wages" under the Internal Revenue Code and, as such, were subject to statutory withholding. View "Noel v. New York State Office of Mental Health Central New York Psychiatric Center" on Justia Law

Following the bankruptcy court's confirmation of Charter's proposed plan of reorganization, LDT, as indenture trustee for certain notes issued by CCI, and a CCI shareholder, appealed the confirmation order to the district court. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the appeals as moot under the doctrine of equitable mootness. View "In re: Charter Communication" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for depraved indifference murder under New York law. The court concluded that the district court erred in denying the petition as procedurally barred, but that the merits of the underlying legal insufficiency claim turned on significant and unsettled questions of New York law, which the court certified to the New York Court of Appeals. View "Gutierrez v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction for possession of a weapon by a person previously convicted of a felony. Defendant argued, inter alia, that the district court improperly (a) excluded evidence that the Government initially discharged the other occupants of the vehicle in which he was traveling with possession of the firearm that the Government claimed was found on his person; and (b) improperly limited cross-examination of a Government witness at trial by barring defendant's use of a prior adverse credibility finding in a similar but unrelated case. The court concluded that the district court's evidentiary rulings were erroneous and that the errors were not harmless. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Plaintiff commenced this action, on behalf of herself and the 181 other individuals in New York State who had received student loan collection letters from defendant. At issue was whether a debt collector's inaccurate representation to a debtor that her student loans were "ineligible" for bankruptcy discharge was a "false, misleading, or deceptive" debt collection practice, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. The court held that it was because the least sophisticated consumer would interpret defendant's letter as representing, incorrectly, that bankruptcy discharge of her loans was wholly unavailable to her. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Easterling v. Collecto, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose when an oil tanker sank off the cost of Spain, releasing large quantities of oil into the ocean. Spain subsequently appealed the district court's holding that defendants were entitled to summary judgment because, in the circumstances presented, Defendant ABS and its subsidiaries did not owe Spain a duty in tort in connection with ABS's inspection of the tanker. Without reaching that issue, the court concluded that even if such a duty were owed, Spain did not introduce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants recklessly breached the duty. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Reino De Espana v. Bureau of Shipping" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery and the district court sentenced him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(a). At issue on appeal was whether a district court could rely on a Presentence Report's (PSR) description of a defendant's pre-arrest conduct that culminated in a prior conviction to determine whether that prior conviction constituted one for a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a)(1), where the defendant made no objection to the PSR's description. The court held that it could not. Therefore, the court vacated the sentence imposed by the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Reyes" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of a writ of habeas corpus with respect to his 2004 Connecticut murder conviction. Petitioner argued that the state trial court's decision to exclude him from the courtroom violated his federal constitutional right to be present at trial and that police interrogation violated his Miranda rights. The court held that any error in excluding petitioner was harmless because he did not miss any critical stage of the trial as a result of that exclusion. Further, because the subsequent decision to continue petitioner's exclusion was attributable to his own violent conduct, the Connecticut Supreme Court reasonably applied United States Supreme Court precedent in upholding the trial court's decision. Petitioner's two claims of improper police procedure in his interrogation were also meritless. One claim misapprehended Supreme Court precedent; the other was never raised in state court and was thus unavailable for review in federal court. View "Jones v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from an amended judgment of conviction for possession and attempted production of child pornography. The court held that defendant waived his procedural challenge to the district court's factfinding at sentencing and, in any event, there was no plain error in these findings. The court also held that there was no merit to defendant's various challenges to the district court's Guidelines calculations in this case as they pertained to his conviction for attempted production of child pornography. The court further held that there was no merit to defendant's argument that any sentence above the minimum term of 15 years mandated by his conviction for attempted production of child pornography, was substantively unreasonable. The challenged 30-year prison sentence fell within the range of substantively reasonable choices available to the district court and the court affirmed. View "United States v. Broxmeyer" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, sought review of an order of removal by ICE. Petitioner entered the United States through the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), using a fraudulent Italian passport. The court held that petitioner knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to contest her removal on any basis other than asylum, and having participated in her asylum-only proceeding, petitioner could not contest removal on the ground that she filed an adjustment of status application after she overstayed the time she was authorized to be in this country. The court concluded that a VWP participant could not contest his or her removal on the basis of an adjustment of status application filed after the 90-day period during which a VWP participant could stay in the country. View "Gjerjaj v. Holder" on Justia Law