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

Petitioner challenged the manner by which the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) calculated Good Conduct Time (GCT) under 18 U.S.C. 3624(b), maintaining that he should be eligible to receive GCT for the 94 months he spent in state and federal custody prior to the date on which he was sentenced in district court, even though those 94 months were credited to a prior state sentence. At issue was whether section 3624(b) permitted the award of GCT for presentence custody served by an inmate, that under 18 U.S.C. 3585(b), could not be credited to the inmate's federal sentence. The court held that the BOP's interpretation of section 3624(b) was persuasive under Skidmore v. Swift & Co. and deferred to the agency's interpretation. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court granting petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the district court dismissing his complaint against his former employer, seeking monetary and equitable relief for alleged age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621, et seq., and state law. At issue was whether the separation agreement between the parties was unenforceable because its provisions did not comply with the requirements of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), 29 U.S.C. 626(f), and applicable Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations, that the separation agreement be written in a manner calculated to be understood. The court held that the separation agreement was written in a manner calculated to be understood by the relevant employees of defendant. The court also rejected plaintiff's argument that summary judgment should have been denied because there were genuine issues of fact to be tried and that the separation agreement was unenforceable because plaintiff was not advised in writing to consult with an attorney. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant appealed from convictions of possession with intent to distribute at least five grams of cocaine base, possession of a firearm by a felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Defendant also appealed the district court's denial of a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. At issue was whether the district court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during his detention because the search and seizure of defendant's person and property were conducted in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment and whether the district court erred in denying defendant's section 2255 motion because he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment. The court held that defendant's detention during the search of his residence was justified pursuant to Michigan v. Summers and that the district court, therefore, did not err in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during that detention. The court also held that defendant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's alleged ineffective assistance was prejudicial and therefore, the district court did not err in denying the section 2255 motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgments of the district court.

The New York State Department of Education and related defendants appealed from an order of the district court denying their motion to vacate an award of attorney's fees to plaintiff where the district court had awarded plaintiff attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988(b) after he successfully challenged on equal protection grounds New York State Education Law 6704(6), which restricted professional veterinarian licenses to United States citizens and aliens who were lawful permanent residents of the United States. The Department appealed the district court's ruling and while the appeal was pending, the United States granted plaintiff permanent legal resident status, which meant that section 6704(6) no longer precluded him from obtaining the license. Accordingly, a panel of the court dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the judgment. The Department then moved to vacate the fee award. The court agreed with the district court that because the judgment in plaintiff's favor, though later vacated, had brought a judicially-sanctioned, material alteration of the parties' legal relationship that had not been reversed on the merits, plaintiff was a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b).

Defendants appealed from preliminary injunctions enjoining defendants from enforcing 22 U.S.C. 7631(f), a provision of the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (Act), 22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq., against plaintiffs, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) engaged in the international fight against HIV/AIDS that received funding under the Act. Section 7631(f), construed and implemented by defendants, required NGOs, as a condition of receiving Act funds, to adopt a policy explicitly opposing prostitution, and prohibiting recipients from engaging in any activities that were "inconsistent" with an anti-prostitution stance. The court held that section 7631(f) fell well beyond what the Supreme Court and the court have upheld as permissible conditions on the receipt of government funds where section 7631(f) did not merely require recipients of the Act's funds to refrain from certain conduct, but went substantially further and compelled recipients to espouse the government's viewpoint. Consequently, the court agreed with the district court that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and found no abuse of discretion by the district court.

Plaintiffs, a group of retail sales employees of defendant, appealed from an order of the district court vacating an arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator had exceeded her authority in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Stolt-Nielson S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. At issue was whether a district court had the authority to vacate an arbitration award where it believed that the arbitrator improperly interpreted the terms of an arbitration agreement. The court held that, because the district court did not undertake the appropriate inquiry - whether, based on the parties' submission for the arbitration agreement, the arbitrator had the authority to reach an issue, not whether the arbitrator decided the issue correctly - and instead substituted its own legal analysis for that of the arbitrator's, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. The court also held that, because the court found that the arbitrator acted within her authority to reach an issue properly submitted to her by the parties and reached her decision by analyzing the terms of the agreement in light of applicable law, the award should not have been vacated. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to confirm the award.

Defendant appealed from the judgment of the district court granting defendants' motion to dismiss his claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. At issue was whether the district court erred in finding that the statute of limitations had run on the first of his two causes of action and in dismissing his second cause of action for improper venue. The court vacated and remanded on the grounds that claims brought by an inmate under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 32 U.S.C. 1997e(a), were entitled to equitable tolling during the time-period the inmate was exhausting his administrative remedies, as required by the PLRA. The court also vacated the judgment insofar as it dismissed some of defendants' claims for improper venue and remanded with instructions that the court transfer those claims to the Eastern District of New York if the court deemed it proper to do so upon reexamination of defendants' claims.

Defendant appealed from a 45 month prison sentence following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm where the district court imposed a six-level sentence enhancement after finding that the stolen weapon was a machine gun. At issue was whether the enhancement was reversible error where the weapon's automatic fire feature was disabled at the time of defendant's theft and therefore, it no longer qualified as a machine gun. The court held that the weapon was a machine gun within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) because the undisputed evidence established that the weapon originally was designed to fire automatically. Accordingly, the sentence was affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of immigration fraud and sentenced to 51 months imprisonment. At issue was under what circumstances did the exclusion of the public from a courtroom during voir dire violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The court held that, although the district court's exclusion of defendant's brother and girlfriend during voir dire failed to meet the four-factor test set forth in Waller v. Georgia, and now Presley v. Georgia, the exclusion was too trivial to implicate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The court also held that Presley did not alter the "triviality exception" to the public trial guarantee. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Petitioner brought this mandamus action to compel USCIS to make a determination on the merits of her I-212 application, alleging that USCIS denied her application in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed petitioner's complaint, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to the REAL ID Act of 2005, 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5), and in the alternative, petitioner's claims were barred by res judicata. The court held that petitioner was indirectly challenging her reinstated order of removal and accordingly, the court held that section 1252(a)(5)'s jurisdictional bar applied equally to preclude such an indirect challenge. Therefore, because the court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's complaint, the court did not reach her remaining arguments.