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

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery and the district court sentenced him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(a). At issue on appeal was whether a district court could rely on a Presentence Report's (PSR) description of a defendant's pre-arrest conduct that culminated in a prior conviction to determine whether that prior conviction constituted one for a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a)(1), where the defendant made no objection to the PSR's description. The court held that it could not. Therefore, the court vacated the sentence imposed by the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Reyes" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of a writ of habeas corpus with respect to his 2004 Connecticut murder conviction. Petitioner argued that the state trial court's decision to exclude him from the courtroom violated his federal constitutional right to be present at trial and that police interrogation violated his Miranda rights. The court held that any error in excluding petitioner was harmless because he did not miss any critical stage of the trial as a result of that exclusion. Further, because the subsequent decision to continue petitioner's exclusion was attributable to his own violent conduct, the Connecticut Supreme Court reasonably applied United States Supreme Court precedent in upholding the trial court's decision. Petitioner's two claims of improper police procedure in his interrogation were also meritless. One claim misapprehended Supreme Court precedent; the other was never raised in state court and was thus unavailable for review in federal court. View "Jones v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from an amended judgment of conviction for possession and attempted production of child pornography. The court held that defendant waived his procedural challenge to the district court's factfinding at sentencing and, in any event, there was no plain error in these findings. The court also held that there was no merit to defendant's various challenges to the district court's Guidelines calculations in this case as they pertained to his conviction for attempted production of child pornography. The court further held that there was no merit to defendant's argument that any sentence above the minimum term of 15 years mandated by his conviction for attempted production of child pornography, was substantively unreasonable. The challenged 30-year prison sentence fell within the range of substantively reasonable choices available to the district court and the court affirmed. View "United States v. Broxmeyer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a conviction of knowingly receiving and possessing child pornography. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in employing the modified categorical approach to analyze the facts underlying his prior state conviction for endangering the welfare of a child, and that under the proper standard - the categorical approach - his prior state conviction did not qualify as a 18 U.S.C. 2252A(b)(1) predicate offense. The court agreed and therefore vacated his sentence and remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "United States v. Beardsley" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a judgment resentencing him for attacking a correctional officer while he was an inmate. On appeal, defendant argued primarily that his resentencing by videoconference constituted a violation of his right to be physically present. The court agreed that the government had not satisfied its burden of proving that he waived his right to be present and that the district court erred in finding a valid waiver. However, this error did not prejudice defendant. The court also held that defendant's sentence was reasonable and therefore, affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Salim" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from convictions related to narcotics offenses and resisting arrest. The court affirmed the convictions on the narcotics counts but vacated his conviction for resisting arrest where there was no evidence that he engaged in any conduct whatsoever that demonstrated a desire to injure an agent or would cause an agent to apprehend immediate injury. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of criminal possession of a weapon and assault, appealed from the district court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. At issue was whether petitioner had established prejudice for the procedural default of his claim that his Miranda rights were violated and whether petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel during the Huntley hearing. The court held that the decision of the Appellate Division was not contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1). Therefore, the court deferred to the determination made by the state court and held that petitioner was not prejudiced by Huntley counsel's alleged ineffectiveness. Further, because petitioner could not show that he was prejudiced by the alleged Miranda violation, the court affirmed the district court's holding that the Miranda claim was procedurally barred. View "Hawthorne v. Spitzer" on Justia Law

Contorinis was a co-portfolio manager of the Fund, which invested in companies in the retail and personal products sectors. In 2000, Contorinis befriended Stephanou, who became an investment banker in the Mergers and Acquisitions group at UBS in 2002. Stephanou regularly provided confidential information to several friends and, in 2005, shared information about a planned acquisition with Contorinis and others. Based on a series of transactions following Stehanou’s disclosures the about and on-again, off-again acquisition, Contorinis was convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and insider trading. The district court imposed a forfeiture order of $12.65 million. The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction. A challenged jury instruction adequately conveyed the definition of material, nonpublic information; the court was within its discretion in admitting evidence of contemporaneous trades by individuals who received inside information from the same source as Contorinis. The court vacated the order to forfeit gains acquired by Contorinis’s employer, but not by him.View "United States v. Contorinis" on Justia Law

Fabrikant was arrested and arraigned on five counts of criminal animal cruelty, pursuant to New York Agriculture and Markets Law 353. All but two of her dogs were taken. The seized dogs were spayed or neutered and sent to live in foster homes pending conclusion of the criminal case. Fabrikant was ultimately acquitted but apparently never asked that her seized dogs be returned after the trial. She filed a pro se civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the New York SPCA, several of its employees, and some of the prospective adopters who originally alerted the SPCA about the dogs’ conditions. The complaint included federal claims for malicious prosecution and for violations of her rights to due process, the presumption of innocence, counsel, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and state-law claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Accordingly, although they acted under color of state law, the SPCA defendants were protected by qualified immunity and could not be held liable for the spaying, neutering, or fostering out of Fabrikant’s dogs. Officers had probable cause to search Fabrikant’s house and arrest her. View "Fabrikant v. French" on Justia Law

Adams entered the U.S. from Jamaica in 1990 on a visitor’s visa and overstayed. Arrested in New York in 1992, for attempting to sell cocaine to an undercover officer, Adams represented that he was “Michael Thomas” and pleaded guilty. “Thomas” failed to appear for sentencing. The state court received a form from Jamaica certifying that “Michael Thomas” had committed suicide. Adams returned to Jamaica where, in 1994, he married a U.S. citizen. Adams applied for an immigrant visa, representing that he had never been in the U.S. and had never been arrested or convicted. The consul granted an immigrant visa in 1997. He was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. In 2008, returning from a trip to Jamaica, he was stopped by Customs officials, who suspected that Adams was “Michael Thomas” in the outstanding arrest warrant. The Board of Immigration Appeals ultimately ordered removal. Adams argued that the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1256(a), barred removal because Adams was the beneficiary of an adjustment of status when he obtained an immigrant visa and that there is a five-year limitation on rescinding the status of a lawful permanent resident. The Second Circuit rejected the arguments.View "Adams v. Holder" on Justia Law