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

Defendant appealed from a Memorandum and Order of Restitution by the district court resentencing him to pay restitution to the victims of a massive "pump-and-dump" securities fraud scheme he and his co-conspirators designed and executed. Defendant contended, inter alia, that the district court should have released some or all of defendant's money held by the court pending his resentencing. The court held that a district court could exercise its authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), to restrain a convicted defendant's funds in anticipation of sentencing. Therefore, the court affirmed the restitution order. View "United States v. Catoggio" on Justia Law

Respondents, New York authorities, appealed from the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus to petitioner. The district court held that the New York Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the state trial court permissibly barred cross-examination of the main prosecution witness on the issue of whether she had accused petitioner of the crimes in question only after being told that petitioner had accused her. On appeal, respondents argued that petitioner's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated and that even if they were, any violation was harmless. The court agreed that no Confrontation Clause violation occurred and therefore reversed the judgment. View "Corby v. Artus" on Justia Law

Defendant, who stands indicted for substantive and conspiratorial drug crimes, and who, having been arraigned, has been detained with no trial date set, appealed from an order denying him bail pending trial. The court concluded that the district court properly applied the court's test for due process review of pretrial detention and that its findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. Therefore, the court affirmed the detention order without prejudice to defendant's moving the court to recall the mandate and reinstated his appeal if the district court did not begin defendant's trial, or set reasonable bail for him by a certain date. View "United States v. Brigg" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former police officer, appealed the district court's judgment, awarding compensatory and punitive damages to plaintiff on his claim of excessive force and battery. The court concluded that the district court did not exceed its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance because the court's decision was neither arbitrary nor prejudicial to defendant's defense. The court agreed, however, with defendant that the punitive damages award was excessive and concluded that a reduced award would more accurately reflect the severity of defendant's misconduct. View "Payne v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to drug charges. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred by applying the ten-year mandatory minimum in 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B) without first concluding that a ten-year sentence was "not greater than necessary" to achieve the sentencing objectives listed in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2). The court rejected defendant's argument and held that a statutory mandatory minimum provision constrained a district court's discretion under section 3553(a) when it "specifically provides" for a minimum sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

The State appealed from the district court's grant of petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. After petitioner's initial sentence was vacated on the ground that it was illegal, the state court resentenced him to a term he contended was higher than his initial sentence and that, as a result, this higher sentence was presumptively vindictive under North Carolina v. Pearce. Because the court concluded that the Appellate Division's determination that the Pearce presumption did not apply to petitioner's resentence was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law, the court reversed. View "Somerville v. Hunt" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of seven offenses involving narcotics, racketeering, and firearm offenses. On appeal, defendant argued that his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself at trial was violated by the district court's failure to grant his request to proceed pro se. The court concluded that defendant abandoned his request to represent himself, and therefore the court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his 33-year sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession. Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying him a sentencing reduction under the "lawful sporting purposes" provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that the proper focus of the inquiry whether a defendant was eligible for the "lawful sporting purposes" reduction was the defendant's purpose for possessing the firearm, determined by considering all relevant surrounding circumstances. By focusing exclusively on defendant's actual use of the firearms he possessed, the district court misinterpreted the Guidelines, but the court concluded that the error was harmless because the district court would have denied the reduction absent any error. View "United States v. Mason" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for depraved indifference murder under New York law. The court concluded that the district court erred in denying the petition as procedurally barred, but that the merits of the underlying legal insufficiency claim turned on significant and unsettled questions of New York law, which the court certified to the New York Court of Appeals. View "Gutierrez v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction for possession of a weapon by a person previously convicted of a felony. Defendant argued, inter alia, that the district court improperly (a) excluded evidence that the Government initially discharged the other occupants of the vehicle in which he was traveling with possession of the firearm that the Government claimed was found on his person; and (b) improperly limited cross-examination of a Government witness at trial by barring defendant's use of a prior adverse credibility finding in a similar but unrelated case. The court concluded that the district court's evidentiary rulings were erroneous and that the errors were not harmless. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law