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

Defendant appealed his conviction following his guilty plea to illegally transporting aliens within the United States; assisting an inadmissible alien in entering the United States; and illegally being present in the United States after having previously been removed. On appeal, defendant contended, inter alia, that the district court miscalculated the applicable sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines by adding two points to his criminal history pursuant to U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(d) for his commission of an offense while under a criminal justice sentence. The court held that defendant's knowledge that he was subject to a term of supervised release was not required for the district court to impose an enhancement based on the fact that defendant committed the instant crimes while "under a[] criminal justice sentence." The court declined to reach defendant's ineffective assistance claim and dismissed without prejudice. With regard to defendant's remaining claims, the court found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Defendant, a securities broker, pleaded guilty to charges related to his conduct involving a bribe greater than $70,000. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred in calculating restitution insofar as it ordered both restitution and forfeiture in the amount of defendant's gains from the fraudulent scheme underlying his conviction. The court held that it was error for the district court to substitute defendant's gains for the victims' losses in calculating restitution, but declined to exercise the court's discretion to notice the error, as defendant failed to object in the district court, and had failed on appeal to show that the error affected his substantial rights or undermined the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings. View "United States v. Zangari" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, motorcyclists, appealed from a jury verdict finding New York State Troopers not liable for injuries that plaintiffs sustained, including one plaintiff who sustained mortal injuries during a traffic stop. Plaintiffs claimed that the troopers violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure through the use of excessive force. The court held that the district court did not err by declining to instruct the jury regarding the use of "deadly force" in addition to a correct instruction on excessive force. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Terranova v. State of New York" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of Robbery in the Third Degree. The State subsequently appealed from an order of the district court denying the State's motion under Rule 60(b)(6) to vacate the district court's grant of habeas relief to petitioner more than a year earlier. The court found that the State's motion was nothing more than an attempted end-run around the one year time limitation on a Rule 60(b)(1) motion, which allowed the district court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Therefore, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the State's Rule 60(b)(6) motion. View "Stevens v. Miller" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment from the district court dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims. Plaintiff was a convicted sex-offender who had been civilly committed post-release from prison and he alleged that when he was confined in the Manhattan Psychiatric Center, staff seized and withheld his personal DVDs and CDs and his incoming non-legal mail in violation of his due process rights. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the complaint failed to state any claim for which relief could be granted. The court also undertook to clarify some applicable principles and affirmed the judgment of the district court because, in any event, it was objectively reasonable for the Center staff to believe that their acts did not violate plaintiff's rights. Accordingly, they were entitled to qualified immunity. View "Ahlers v. Rabinowitz" on Justia Law

The district court ordered the Governor of the State of New York and various state commissioners and agencies to make certain modifications to the State's mental health system to ensure compliance with 28 C.F.R. 35.130(d) - the so-called "integration mandate" of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794. The court held that DAI, a nonprofit organization contracted to provide services to New York's Protection and Advocacy System under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, 42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq., lacked standing under Article III to bring the claim. The court also held that the intervention of the United States after the liability phase of the litigation had concluded was insufficient to cure the jurisdictional defect created by DAI's lack of standing. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment and remedial order and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. View "Disability Advocates, Inc. v. New York Coalition for Quality Assisted Living, Inc, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from defendant's judgment of conviction for one count of distributing, and possessing with the intent to distribute, a controlled substance. At his trial, the prosecution introduced, over the defense's objection, testimony from two police detectives that they were familiar with defendant and had spoken to him on numerous occasions prior to his arrest in the instant case. The court held that the admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and 403 of trial testimony by the officers was an abuse of discretion where the testimony served no purpose other than to invite jury speculation about defendant's propensity to attract police contact and monitoring. The court further held that such error was not harmless and therefore vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's denial of his motion to compel post-conviction DNA testing of six items pursuant to the Innocence Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 3600 et seq. Defendant contended that the testing of these items would provide evidence exonerating him from his conviction for the murder of three persons in furtherance of a continuing enterprise. On appeal, defendant faulted the government for failing to take reasonable measures to preserve the items he sought to test and for lack of due diligence in searching for the items. The court held that defendant failed to show that "[t]he proposed DNA testing of specific evidence may produce new material evidence that would...raise a reasonable probability that [he] did not commit the offense." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pitera" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to distribute heroin, aggravated theft, and making false statements on a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency. Defendant appealed his convictions for aggravated identity theft and false statements, the district court's pretrial denials of his motions to suppress statements made during a safety-valve proffer and for severance of Count One from Counts Four and Six of the indictment, and his 110 month sentence. The court held that (1) defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence; (2) the court's pretrial decisions on defendant's motions were not erroneous; and (3) defendant's sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Concluding that defendant's claims on appeal have no merit, the court affirmed both his convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Oyewumi" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment, dismissing their complaint, which alleged that an elementary school student's First Amendment rights were violated when he was suspended for six days after expressing a wish for violence to the school and teachers. The litigation arose out of a crayon drawing by B.C., a ten-year-old fifth-grader, in response to an in-class assignment. The drawing depicted an astronaut and expressed a desire to "[b]low up the school with the teachers in it." The court concluded that it was reasonably foreseeable that the astronaut drawing could create a substantial disruption at the school and defendants' resulting decision to suspend B.C. was constitutional. The court also held that there was no merit to plaintiffs' argument that B.C.'s punishment was excessive in light of the court's deference to school authorities. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cuff v. Valley Central School District" on Justia Law