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

Defendant appealed his conviction, seeking vacatur of the judgment and dismissal of the indictment with prejudice on the ground that he was not retried following an earlier mandate of this court within the time prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(e). The court concluded that, however preferable section 3161(e) findings extending the time for retrial to be made within the initial 70-day retrial period, the statute itself did not impose such a requirement. For that reason, and because the court identified no error in the district court's decision to grant an extension to 180 days or in its determination that defendant was tried within that time, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Shellef" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's grant of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) pursuant to Amendment 750 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that the district court did not err in declining to apply a downward variance to sentence defendant below the reduced Guidelines range. Under U.S.S.G. 1B1.10, the district court did not have discretion to apply the variance to which defendant asserted he was entitled. In spite of defendant's arguments to the contrary, U.S.S.G. 1B1.10 bound the district court, was a valid exercise of the Commission's authority, and did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., requirements for the promulgation of formal rules. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Erskine (Johnson)" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm and body armor as a convicted felon, arguing that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Defendant relied on recent Supreme Court opinions developing a more expansive interpretation of the Amendment. But in both of these opinions, the Supreme Court clearly emphasized that recent developments in Second Amendment jurisprudence should not "be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons." Therefore, the court joined every other circuit to consider the issue in affirming that section 922(g)(1) was a constitutional restriction on the Second Amendment rights of convicted felons. View "United States v. Bogle" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal with prejudice plaintiff's complaint seeking indemnification for property loss caused by fire under an insurance policy. At issue were two provisions in the policy: one requiring the insured to file suit on the policy within two years and the second requiring the insured, seeking replacement costs, to replace the damaged property before bringing suit, and to complete the replacement work as soon as reasonably possible. Because New York law did not clearly resolve the question of what happens to insured property that could not reasonably be replaced within two years, the court certified the question to the New York State Court of Appeals. View "Executive Plaza, LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner, an attorney, appealed pro se from the tax court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner and sustaining a proposed levy to collect outstanding income tax liabilities owed by petitioner and his wife for the 2000, 2001, and 2002 taxable years. The court concluded that petitioner's argument that the settlement officer with the IRS Appeals Office abused his discretion by issuing a determination on the proposed levy without first affording petitioner an in-person collection due process hearing was without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Williams v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Following remand from a prior appeal, the district court determined that defendant's breach of two contracts proximately caused injury to Carco. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court's findings were erroneous because proximate causation did not exist, and that various determinations as to damages, fees, costs, and interest were derivatively, as well as independently, in error. Carco challenged certain aspects of the district court's calculation of the attorneys' fees awarded to Carco and the denial of prejudgment interest on that award. The court vacated and remanded Carco's breach of contract claim for further determinations regarding proximate causation and quantification of Carco's damages on its contract claim, and, if appropriate, the related question of the applicability of an offset to any resulting damages award. To the extent any damages, fees, costs, and interest awards were based on the breach of contract cause of action, they were also vacated. All damages, costs, and interest awards based on Carco's faithless servant claim were affirmed. The twenty-percent reduction and denial of interest on attorneys' fees were reversed. The court instructed the district court to recalculate the award of attorneys' fees in light of those reversals and in light of its findings with respect to proximate cause on Carco's contract claim. View "Carco Group, Inc. et al. v. Maconachy" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 750 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. Rather, the district court had the discretion to conclude that a sentence of 168 months was as low as the circumstances warranted, even in light of the lower Guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, sought review of the BIA's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Petitioner was able to demonstrate this continuous presence except for two encounters with U.S. Border Patrol in 2007, each of which resulted in what the parties termed petitioner's "voluntary return" to Mexico. The court held that the immigration judge reasonably found that during each of those well-documented encounters, petitioner knowingly and voluntarily conceded his removability, waived his right to appear before an immigration judge, and chose to leave the United States in lieu of more formal proceedings. The court further held that petitioner's return to Mexico under those circumstances severed his continuous physical presence in the United States, rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Finally, the court denied petitioner's appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen proceedings. View "Rosario-Mijangos v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and 1326(b)(2). On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence as substantively unreasonable. The district court imposed defendant's 57-month sentence to run consecutively to his existing sentence after considering his history, characteristics, and the goals of sentencing, most notably, deterrence. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court acted well within its discretion in imposing the sentence. The court considered defendant's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from appellant's attempt to intervene in a wrongful death law suit. After an appeal from a judgment of the district court, this court affirmed the district court's judgment denying appellant's motion to intervene, and ordered appellant and her attorney to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for their conduct on appeal. The court concluded that appellant and her counsel's conduct in prosecuting the appeal was frivolous and offensive, warranting the imposition of sanctions. After review of their submissions and the totality of the circumstances, the court invoked the inherent power of the court and imposed sanctions in the form of double costs jointly and severally on appellant and her counsel. View "Ransmeier v. UAL Corporation, et al." on Justia Law