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

Plaintiffs filed suit under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a), alleging that Morgan Stanley and six of its officers and former officers made material misstatements and omissions during the class period in an effort to conceal the company's exposure to and losses from the subprime mortgage market. The district court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claim that defendants' omission of information purportedly required to be disclosed under Item 303 of Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. 229.303(a)(3)(ii), violated Section 10(b). The court also affirmed the district court's order dismissing plaintiffs' other claims in a summary order issued simultaneously with this decision. View "Fjarde AP-Fonden v. Morgan Stanley" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and appealed his sentence, contending that the district court erred when it calculated his criminal history category and base offense level by relying on prior sentences imposed upon pleas entered in accordance with North Carolina v. Alford. The court joined its sister circuits in concluding that a sentence imposed for a conviction resulting from an Alford plea constitutes a "prior sentence" within the meaning of U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(a)(1). Therefore, the court rejected defendant's arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Banks" on Justia Law

AngioDynamics filed suit against Biolitec, alleging that Biolitec failed to fulfill its contractual obligation to defend or indemnify AngioDynamics for litigation expenses and losses resulting from AngioDynamic's distribution of Biolitec's products. Non-party Biolitec FZ now moves to be substituted for or joined with Biolitec, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(b), as a party-appellant in appealing the partial final judgment entered by the district court. The court held that substitution is not warranted in this case because Biolitec FZ has not demonstrated that it "needs to be substituted" within the meaning of Rule 43(b) and, therefore, the court denied the motion and dismissed the appeal. The court approved AngioDynamic's stipulation to withdraw the appeal. View "AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court painstakingly calculated the Guidelines-recommended range of imprisonment, finding that the factual components of its calculations were supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. The court rejected defendant's claims of procedural error that the district court improperly calculated his Guidelines offense level by inconsistently crediting parts of his trial testimony and that the district court improperly made findings as to loss amount, number of victims, role, and intent to obstruct justice. Further, the court concluded that defendant's 240-month term of imprisonment was substantively reasonable. Because the court found all of defendant's claims to be without merit, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Norman" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of the former Yugoslavia and citizen of Montenegro, sought review of the BIA's order of removal, denial of his request for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(h), and denial of his request for a continuance. At issue was whether an alien who lawfully entered the country without lawful permanent resident (LPR) status but later adjusted to LPR status is eligible to seek a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h). The court joined seven sister circuits and found that an alien like petitioner is unambigiously not "an alien who has previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence." Therefore, petitioner is eligible to seek a waiver under section 212(h) if the Attorney General chooses to exercise favorable discretion. The challenge to the denial of petitioner's request for a continuance is moot. Accordingly, the court granted the petition in part and vacated the removal order to permit application for a waiver of inadmissibility. The court dismissed the remainder of the petition as moot and remanded for further proceedings. View "Husic v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, as assignee of his brother's interest in the forfeited property ($50,000 in bail money), appealed the district court's denial of his motion to set aside a declaration of forfeiture under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. 983(e)(1). The district court dismissed the petition, holding that the assignment was invalid because the forfeiture had been completed and all interest in the property had vested in the United States at the time of the assignment. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the Act permits any person with an interest in forfeited property to file a motion to set aside a declaration of forfeiture after the forfeiture has occurred on grounds of lack of notice. The court also concluded that the assignment of petitioner's brother's interest to him was valid under New York law. View "Lucas v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of New York State's requirement that all children be vaccinated in order to attend public school. The statute provides two exemptions from the immunization mandate: a medical exemption and a religious exemption. Rejecting plaintiffs' substantive due process, free exercise of religion, equal protection, and Ninth Amendment challenges, the court concluded that the statute and regulation are a constitutionally permissible exercise of the State's police power and do not infringe on the free exercise of religion. The court further concluded that plaintiff's remaining arguments are either meritless or waived. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss. View "Phillips v. City of New York" on Justia Law