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

Defendant appealed from his conviction of two counts of sex trafficking of a minor. At issue was the appropriate construction of 18 U.S.C. 1591(c), an evidentiary provision added by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), Pub. L. No. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044. The court held that this provision, when applicable, imposed strict liability with regard to defendant's awareness of the victim's age, thus relieving the government's usual burden to prove knowledge or reckless disregard of the victim's underage status under section 1591(a). The court rejected defendant's remaining evidentiary and sentencing challenges as lacking merit and therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Four partners and employees of Ernst & Young, one of the largest accounting firms in the world, appealed their convictions in connection with the development and defense of five "tax shelters" that were sold or implemented by the firm between 1999 and 2001. At issue, among other things, was the scope of criminal liability in a conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. 371 and the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the criminal intent of certain defendants. The court held, among other things, that defendants' challenge to the so-called Klein conspiracy theory of criminal liability under section 371 failed under the law of the Circuit, which remained good law absent review or modification by the Supreme Court; with respect to sufficiency challenges, the court reversed some convictions based on insufficient evidence; and venue was proper with respect to Count Six, which charged defendant Vaughn with false statements to the IRS. The court addressed the remaining issues and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. View "United States v. Coplan (Nissenbaum)" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was arrested for third-degree menacing under New York law and brought an action against defendants for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff also sued the City of White Plains under section 1983 for failure to train and supervise the arresting officers. Plaintiff approached a woman in her driveway, questioned her about members of her household, and insisted that her car had hit his. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. The court vacated the judgment of the district court. The order granting summary judgment to all defendants on the theory that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity was reversed; denying partial summary judgment on plaintiff's state law false arrest claims against the arresting officers and the City was reversed; and denying partial summary judgment for plaintiff against the officers under section 1983 was reversed. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants on the Monell claim and the dismissal of all malicious prosecution claims under New York law and section 1983. The court remanded with instructions to grant plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability for his state law false arrest claims against the officers and the City; against the officers under section 1983 for his false arrest claims; and for the dismissal of the affirmative defenses of probable cause. View "Ackerson v. City of White Plains" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, barring New York State handgun licensing officials from requiring that applicants prove "proper cause" to obtain licenses to carry handguns for self-defense pursuant to New York Penal Law section 400.00(2)(f). They argued that application for section 400.00(2)(f) violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Because the proper cause requirement was substantially related to New York's compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kachalsky v. Cacace" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants unlawfully retaliated against him after he spoke out about issues involving his employer, the Long Beach Fire Department. The district court dismissed some of the claims against some of the defendants and the remaining individual defendants sought to appeal the denial of their dismissal motion, raising a defense of qualified immunity. The court held, however, that it lacked jurisdiction to consider their appeal because they did not file a timely notice of appeal that specified that they intended to appeal. View "Gusler v. The City of Long Beach" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from her drug related convictions. Defendant challenged the district court's denial of her pretrial motion to suppress the drugs. The court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that exigent circumstances justified the DEA agents' warrantless entry into defendant's room. Further, the court found no error in the district court's finding that defendant's consent was voluntary. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Moreno" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq., following the district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was dismissed from Valley View's volunteer program after engaging in erratic and harassing behavior towards female staff. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether he was discriminated against because of his disability. View "McElwee v. County of Orange" on Justia Law

The City of White Plains and certain individually named law-enforcement officers appealed from an award of $290,997.94 in costs, of which some $286,065.00 represented attorneys' fees, awarded in connection with a $30,000 judgment for plaintiffs ordered pursuant to an offer judgment under Rule 68. Defendants contended that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees because (1) their Rule 68 offer of judgment to settle "all claims" should have been interpreted to encompass costs, including attorney's fees; and (2) the fee award bore no relationship to plaintiffs' degree of success in the litigation. The court held that the Supreme Court's ruling in Marek v. Chesny compelled rejection of the first argument. As to the second, the court's "highly deferential" review of attorney's fees awards coupled with defendants' failure to adequately advance the issue, compelled its rejection. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Barbour v. City of White Plains" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his convictions for conspiring to, and filing, false claims with the IRS, bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and identity theft. The court held that there was insufficient evidence for defendant's conviction for bank fraud and that his conviction for bank fraud and aggravated identity theft related to bank fraud must be vacated. The court found that defendant's other arguments were without merit but did not address his claim regarding the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. View "United States v. Gyanbaah (Nkansah)" on Justia Law

Plaintiff insured, operator of a number of check cashing stores in the New York City area, contended that a criminal scheme perpetrated at its store constituted "robbery" within the meaning of its crime insurance policy which the defendant insurer issued. Because the court agreed with the district court that the policy was ambiguous and that the insured offered a reasonable interpretation of the policy permitting coverage, the court concluded that the insurer was liable under the policy and therefore affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insured. View "Vam Check Cashing Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co." on Justia Law