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

Defendant appealed from a judgment of the district court sentencing him principally to a term of imprisonment of 228 months for committing drug offenses. At issue was whether the district court correctly determined, for the purpose of applying U.S.S.G. 2D1.1., the most closely analogous substance listed in the Drug Quantity Table of that Guideline to the controlled substance seized from defendant at the time of his arrest. Because the district court did not have the benefit of the court's opinions in United States v. Chowdhury and United States v. Figueroa, which were issued while this appeal was pending and which governed this case, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. David" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from separate judgments of conviction related to their activities in a narcotics trafficking ring. Defendants raised numerous issues on appeal. Having conducted an independent review of the record, the court found no error in the district court's thorough and considered analysis of defendants' various claims. To the extent defendants have raised claims that were not initially brought before the district court, the court held that they did not reveal error, much less plain error. These complex proceedings were conducted with care and fairness and therefore, the court affirmed the judgments. View "United States v. Hiciano (Batista)" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from a grant of summary judgment dismissing their challenge to the legislative prayer practice at Town Board meetings in the Town of Greece, New York. Since 1999, the town has begun its Town Board meetings with a short prayer. The court held that the district court erred in rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the town's prayer practice affiliated the town with a single creed, Christianity, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Galloway v. Town of Greece" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a follower of Islam, was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Otisville, New York (FCI Otisville). Plaintiff's religious beliefs required participation in congregational prayer five times a day but under the FCI Otisville policy, the prison chapel was available only once a day and no other space within the facility was made available to plaintiff and others in his faith. Plaintiff subsequently appealed from the district court's dismissal of his claims that defendants violated his rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1, based on a finding that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies concerning his congregational prayer policy claim. Because the court found that plaintiff did indeed exhaust his administrative remedies, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Johnson v. Killian" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from defendant's conviction, after a guilty plea, on child pornography charges. Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. The court held that the district court erred when it imposed a mandatory life sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3559(e) in the apparent absence of judicial record evidence regarding the age of the victim of his prior state offense. Accordingly, the court remanded solely for resentencing. View "United States v. Rood" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to wire fraud and subsequently appealed her sentence of principally 78 months' imprisonment. Defendant argued that her sentence was procedurally defective and substantively unreasonable. Defendant argued that the district court procedurally erred by: (1) inadequately considering the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors; and (2) neglecting to address several of her objections to the Presentence Investigation Report, allegedly in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(a)(3)(B). The court held that because defendant did not raise either procedural objection before the district court, the court's review was restricted to plain error. The court further concluded that neither alleged procedural defect amounted to plain error. Because the court also concluded that the sentence chosen by the district court was substantively reasonably, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wagner-Dano" on Justia Law

This petition for enforcement of an order of the Board and an employer's cross-petition for review primarily concerned the validity of an employer's dress code provision limiting employees to displaying only prounion buttons on their work uniforms. Also at issue were the discharges of two employees. These issues arose out of efforts to unionize employees at several Starbucks coffee shops in Manhattan. The court concluded that Starbuck's enforcement of its one button dress code was not an unfair labor practice, nor was one of the two challenged discharges; as to the other discharge, a remand was required. Therefore, the court enforced in part, granted the cross-petition for review in part, and remanded. View "National Labor Relations Board v. Starbucks Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the district court dismissing their complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiffs argued that New York's Kosher Law Protection Act of 2004 (Kosher Act), N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law 201-a-201-d, violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and was unconstitutionally vague. The court held that the Kosher Act did not violate the Establishment Clause because it neither advanced or impeded religion, had a secular purpose, and did not create an excessive entanglement between state and religion. The court further held that the Kosher Act did not violate the Free Exercise Clause because it was neutral, generally applicable, minimally burdensome, and had a rational basis. Finally, even under the strictest scrutiny, the inspection provision was not void for vagueness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Commack Self-Service Kosher v. Hooker" on Justia Law

This case arose from a longstanding insurance dispute between plaintiffs and their excess insurers. Plaintiffs appealed an order of appraisal in the district court and that court's subsequent order confirming the appraisal award and granting defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs argued that: (1) defendants waived their appraisal rights by failing to invoke them within a reasonable time, (2) the appraisers exceeded their power by deciding legal issues, and (3) the appraisal was improperly conducted in violation of plaintiffs' due process rights. The court found these arguments to be without merit and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Amerex Group, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the dismissal of their amended and second amended complaints for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The two complaints asserted claims for relief against defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78t(a), and S.E.C. Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. Plaintiffs claimed that CBS delayed interim impairment testing of the corporation's intangible assets despite indicia that such a test was necessary at an earlier date. The court affirmed the district court's opinion dismissing the complaints and held that the district court's conclusion was reinforced by Fait v. Regions Fin. Corp. View "City of Omaha v. CBS Corp." on Justia Law