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

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendants had engaged in a conspiracy to fraudulently increase rents payable by tenants in over 400 buildings they owned in New York City, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, and the New York Consumer Protection Act (NYCPA), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349(a). The parties subsequently agreed to a settlement. At issue on appeal was the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlement. The court concluded that the district court's careful review of the settlement warranted the great deference the court normally accords to trial court findings with respect to the fairness of class action settlements. The court also concluded that a fundamental conflict did not exist between the members of the class, and that the Class Counsel's representation was adequate under Rule 12(a)(4). Therefore, it was not necessary to divide the class into subclasses with separate representation. To the extent that plaintiffs argued that the rejection of the settlement by all five remaining named class representatives requires its rejection, the court could not agree. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Charron v. Wiener" on Justia Law

Defendant, a reputed international arms trafficker was convicted of conspiracy to kill United States nationals; conspiracy to kill United States officers and employees; conspiracy to acquire and export a missile system designed to destroy aircraft; and conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Defendant raised numerous issues on appeal. The court concluded that, in the absence of actual animus or shocking conduct akin to coercion or a violation of defendant's person, an international sting operation of the kind undertaken in this case did not constitute either vindictive prosecution or outrageous government conduct; government application of "coercive political pressure" on a foreign government to secure a defendant's extradition did not render that defendant's prosecution improper; the district court correctly rejected defendant's claim that his prosecution violated the doctrine of specialty; and the indictment sufficiently charged defendant with conspiracy to murder United States nationals and conspiracy to murder United States officers and employees, notwithstanding that the indictment did not refer explicitly to "murder." Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's conviction and remanded for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error. View "United States v. Bout" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of distributing child pornography. On appeal, the United States appealed from that part of the judgment sentencing defendant to 30 months' incarceration. The court concluded that the application of the five-year minimum sentence mandated by 18 U.S.C. 2252(b) was not so grossly disproportionate to the crime here as to be precluded in this case by the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and, in exercising its sentencing discretion in this case, the district court could not impose a lesser prison sentence than the statutorily mandated minimum. The court also concluded that, in calculating a defendant's Sentencing Guidelines range for distributing child pornography, a pattern enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(5) applied to a defendant who committed any two acts fitting the Guidelines definition of "sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor," without regard to the temporal proximity of those acts, the defendant's own minority at the time of such acts, or mitigating circumstances; because a computer was not essential to the crime of distributing child pornography, the computer-use enhancement provided in U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(6) did not constitute impermissible double counting; and because neither the statute of conviction nor the applicable Guideline was limited to distribution crimes, the distribution enhancement under 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) did not constitute impermissible double counting. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Reingold" on Justia Law

Claimant appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the government in a civil forfeiture proceeding. Although several claims of error asserted by claimant were without merit, the court acted nostra sponte in holding that the district court's application of legal standards antedating adoption of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), 18 U.S.C. 983, constituted plain error and affected claimant's substantial rights. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Pellegrino" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, visual artists who sell their works on sidewalks and in public parks, filed suit against the City challenging the 2010 revisions to vending regulations. The court affirmed the district court's holding that the vending regulations were valid content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions subject to intermediate scrutiny where the City's interests - alleviating congestion and improving circulation, promoting the aesthetics of the parks, and ensuring that the parks were available to the public for a wide range of activities - were significant, and the regulations were narrowly tailored. The court also affirmed the district court's issue of a protective order in response to plaintiffs' request to depose Mayor Bloomberg and former Deputy Mayor Skyler. View "Lederman v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Parks & Recreation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12181 et seq., alleging that his neighborhood diner violated the ADA by having a wheelchair inaccessible entrance and other barriers that made the diner wheelchair-inaccessible. The court concluded that plaintiff had standing to challenge the diner's inaccessible entrance even though he had never attempted to enter the diner; plaintiff alleged that the step deterred him from frequenting the diner; the diner had not indicated an intent to remedy this barrier; and plaintiff's testimony and proximity to the diner created a reasonable inference that he would frequent the diner were the violation remedied. Because plaintiff had standing to pursue injunctive relief as to the diner's entrance, he had standing to seek removal of all barriers inside the diner related to his disability that he would likely encounter were he able to access the diner. The court rejected defendants' claims that the district court incorrectly determined that constructing a permanent ramp was readily achievable where defendants failed to support their assertion. The court rejected defendants' remaining claims and affirmed the district court's grant of injunctive relief to plaintiff, as well as compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. View "Kreisler v. Second Avenue Diner Corp." on Justia Law

Respondents appealed the district court's grant of habeas relief to petitioner, convicted of drug conspiracy and possession charges, because petitioner's attorneys had failed to discuss with him a critical plea option that likely would have resulted in a sentence significantly lower than that actually imposed. The court concluded that the state court's determination that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that his first attorney was a coconspirator was not, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2), based on an "unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented," and therefore affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's conflict of interest claim. The court also concluded that in granting the habeas petition on the ground that petitioner was not made aware of a particular plea option, the magistrate judge and district court misread the state court's decision denying that claim. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's decision because the state court's finding that petitioner was made aware of another, more favorable, plea option was not an unreasonable determination of the facts. View "Cardoza v. Rock" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a conviction of illegally reentering the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a)(2) and (b)(2). The court concluded that defendant's statute of limitations defense failed where he was not "found in" the United States in 2002, as he argued, but was instead "found" here in 2010. The court also concluded that defendant's ineffective assistance claim failed where the IJ relied upon multiple grounds for denying defendant relief and the court did not think clearly erroneous the district court's finding that evidence of defendant's cooperation was before the court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Amaranth, a hedge fund, had manipulated the price of natural gas futures in violation of the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA), 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. Plaintiffs also alleged that J.P. Morgan had aided and abetted Amaranth's manipulation of natural gas futures through J.P. Futures' services as Amaranth's futures commission merchant and clearing broker. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the district court did not apply the correct standard in evaluating the sufficiency of their amended complaint and likewise failed to recognize the amended complaint's well-pleaded allegations that J.P. Futures aided and abetted Amaranth's manipulation within the meaning of Section 22 of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 25(a). The court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiffs' amended complaint failed to state a claim against J.P. Futures. Because the court concluded that this was so even under the pleading standards that plaintiffs argued should apply, the court did not decide whether the district court's application of a more stringent standard was error. View "In re Amaranth Nat. Gas Commodities Litig." on Justia Law

Press intervenors appealed the district court's decision denying them access to court proceedings and a sealed internal police document (Report) and continuing to redact parts of hearing transcripts. The court concluded that the district court erred by declining to order release of the full transcript of the contempt hearing, but that given the minimal relevance of portions of the Report that were not testified to at the contempt hearing to the substance of that proceeding, the Report did not become a judicial document to which the First Amendment right applied. Accordingly, the court affirmed as to the Report, reversed as to the hearing transcript; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Newsday v. County of Nassau" on Justia Law