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

Defendants were convicted on charges stemming from their involvement in a fraudulent mortgage scheme. On appeal, defendants challenged their sentences and restitution orders. The court held that U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(ii), which increased an offense by two levels if it was "committed through mass-marketing," applied only if the audience of the mass-marketing was in some sense victimized by the scheme. Because the record was unclear in this case, the court remanded for the district court to make additional findings. The court found no error, however, in the district court's calculation of loss amount for sentencing. Finally, the court agreed with the parties that the district court's restitution calculation was erroneous. View "United States v. Bills (Lacey)" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from a judgment by the district court in favor of insurance companies which had disclaimed any duty to defend or indemnify their policyholders in a separate state court action brought by a third party arising from an accident involving the operation of the policyholders' all-terrain vehicle (ATV). The Connecticut Supreme Court's answers to certified questions left no doubt that the district court correctly found that: (1) the only location relevant in determining whether the homeowner's policy provided the subject coverage was the site of the accident and (2) the accident did not occur at an "insured location," as that language was construed under Connecticut law. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Royal, declaring that the foundational homeowner's policy did not cover the ATV accident that allegedly caused injury to Connor. The court addressed remaining issues and subsequently affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Arrowood Indemnitv Co. v. King" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction after pleading guilty to conspiracy to violate the narcotics laws of the United States. Because the court concluded that the waiver of appeal was valid and that the relevant change in law caused by Dorsey v. United States did not affect a valid waiver of appeal, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United Statesv. Snyder (Harrison)" on Justia Law

LSED sought to rescind an agreement to purchase bond insurance from FGIC and recover its $13 million premium payment. LSED based its claim on failure of cause, a tenet of Louisiana law that required all contracts be supported by cause. Because the court found that the principal cause of the agreement between the parties was the purchase of bond insurance to protect the bondholders in the event of default, not to reduce the interest rate LSED paid to borrow money, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "In Re: Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her convictions for attempted murder of United States nationals, attempted murder of United States officers and employees, armed assault of United States officers and employees, assault of United States officers and employees, and use of a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant also challenged her sentence of 86 years imprisonment. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss Count One of the indictment; the district court appropriately denied defendant's motion to dismiss Counts Two through Seven of the indictment; the district court did not commit reversible error by admitting, under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), documents allegedly found in her possession at the time Afghan officials took her into custody; the district court did not err in allowing defendant to testify in her own defense; the district court did not err in allowing the government to rebut her testimony with un-Mirandized statements she gave to the FBI; and the district court did not err in applying the terrorism enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3A1.4. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Siddiqui" on Justia Law