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

Hearing that Warren had called him an insulting name, Darnell notified his friends to leave the area, entered the store, followed by his brother, Darryl. Darryl grabbed Warren and said “I told you to stay out of this store.” Darryl’s gun fired. Darnell drew his gun and pointed it at another. Darryl fired four more shots into Warren. After Darryl pleaded guilty to second-degree intentional murder, Darnell was convicted of second-degree depraved-indifference murder and sentenced to 17-1/2 years to life in prison, the same sentence received by his brother. The appellate court affirmed, finding the evidence sufficient to convict Darnell as an accomplice to depraved-indifference murder. Before the conviction became final, the New York supreme court reversed a depraved-indifference murder conviction based on accomplice liability where the attack on the victim was “quintessentially intentional.” State courts rejected a motion to vacate Darnell’s conviction. He filed a habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court denied the petition. The Second Circuit affirmed, noting that this was the fourth case to advance the “somewhat perverse argument” that petitioner should be released from custody because the evidence suggests he is more culpable than he was found to be. View "Epps v. Poole" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding pro se, was knocked unconscious and injured when a prison transport bus, in which he was riding with his wrists and ankles shackled, took a sharp turn. He claimed defendants violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by transporting him on a bus without a seatbelt. The district court dismissed. The Second Circuit affirmed. Failure of prison officials to provide seatbelts to prison inmates does not, standing alone, violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. View "Jabbar v. Fischer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction based on two counts of bank robbery and sentence of life imprisonment. The court held that the three strikes statutory scheme under 18 U.S.C. 3559(c)(1) was constitutional and did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers. Further, defendant's argument that prior convictions subjecting a defendant to life imprisonment under section 3559 must be found by a jury in a bifurcated jury trial was without merit. The court considered all of defendant's remaining arguments on appeal and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gonzalez (Deida)" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his application for adjustment of status and order of removal. At issue was whether petitioner was eligible to adjust his status to legal permanent resident (LPR) status on any basis other than marriage to his K-1 visa sponsor. Because petitioner was originally admitted to the United States on a K-1 nonimmigrant visa, he could not adjust his status to that of a full LPR on any basis other than marriage to his original K-1 visa sponsor. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Caraballo-Tavera v. Holder" on Justia Law

Taxpayer appealed a decision of the Tax Court that disallowed her deduction for donating a "facade conservation easement" to the National Architectural Trust on the ground that there was no "qualified appraisal" within the meaning of Treasury Regulation 1.170A-13(c)(3). The court concluded that the Trust's agreement to accept the gift of the easement was not a transfer of anything of value to the taxpayer and thus did not constitute a quid pro quo for the gift of the cash. The court also concluded that the appraisal satisfied the regulatory specifications and vacated the Tax Court's judgment, remanding for further proceedings. View "Scheidelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed from the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate his conviction or correct his sentence on the principal grounds that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel, and (2) from the denial of his motion for reconsideration. The court vacated so much of the July 2009 Order as summarily rejected petitioner's biased-investigator ineffective assistance of counsel claim and remanded to the district court for further proceedings on this claim, including such proceedings as could be necessary for the court to determine whether to appoint counsel to represent petitioner in connection with this claim. The court declined to address petitioner's remaining issues. View "Matthews v. United States" on Justia Law

The government appealed from the district court's decision vacating defendant's conviction of one count of attempted enticement of a minor and grant of his motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. The government argued that the district court erred because the deviation between the text of the indictment and the jury charge neither affected the "core criminality" proven at trial nor modified an "essential element" of the crime, nor did it leave defendant open to be charged again for the same offense. The court agreed with the government's contentions and therefore reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. D'Amelio" on Justia Law

This case arose from a trademark infringement suit involving the sale of counterfeit versions of defendant's hoisin sauce. The district court subsequently imposed sanctions in fees and costs pursuant to FRCP 11 against plaintiffs and their attorneys in favor of defendant. The attorneys appealed, contending that the district court erred in its application of Rule 11. Defendant cross-appealed, contending that the district should have awarded substantially more in fees and costs and moved to sanction the attorneys for filing a purportedly frivolous appeal. The court held that the safe harbor requirement under Rule 11 was satisfied in these circumstances; the attorneys have failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the action was frivolous; nor have the attorneys shown that the district court abused its discretion in deciding to impose monetary sanctions. The court rejected defendant's arguments on cross appeal and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Star Mark Mgmt., Inc. v. Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd." on Justia Law

In these parallel cases, separate petitions were filed requesting the district court to set a "reasonable" rate after ASCAP and BMI were unable to agree on licensing fees with DMX, a provider of background/foreground music. In both cases, the district court adopted DMX's proposals. The court held the Second Amended Final Judgment (AFJ2) permitted blanket licenses subject to carve-outs to account for direct licensing and the court rejected ASCAP's claim that a blanket license with an adjustable carve-out conflicted with the AJF2. The court concluded that the district court in both cases found that ASCAP and BMI did not sustain their burdens of proving that their proposals were reasonable; no legal error contributed to these findings and the findings supported by the record were not clearly erroneous; and in both instances, the district court had the authority to set a reasonable rate for DMX's licenses. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in setting DMX's licensing rates with ASCAP and BMI and that the rates set by the district court were reasonable. View "Broadcast Music, Inc. v. DMX Inc.; American Society of Computers, Authors and Publishers v. THP Capstar Acquisition Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney admitted to practice in New York, appealed from an order of the district court dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Section 25(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78y(a)(1), provided a comprehensive remedial scheme that required plaintiff to appeal an SEC debarment order to a court of appeals. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that Section 25(a) did, under this Circuit's precedent, supply the jurisdictional route that plaintiff must follow to challenge the SEC action in this case. View "Altman v. SEC, et al." on Justia Law