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

Defendant was twice sentenced for violating conditions of supervised release. The first time, he was sentenced to six months in prison plus four years of supervised release. The second time, he was sentenced to three years in prison plus five years of supervised release. The parties agreed that this most recent sentence of supervised release was longer than allowed by statute. The district court was authorized to impose a term of supervised release of no more than the statutory maximum of five years for the underlying offense, minus the aggregate amount of prison time imposed for violations of supervised release. The parties disagree on the remedy. Defendant sought de novo resentencing, but the government seeks only a limited remand to reduce the term of supervised release to eighteen months.   The Second Circuit remanded for resentencing. The court concluded that the district court should be afforded the opportunity to exercise its discretion as to how much time Defendant should spend in prison and how much time on supervised release. The court explained that under Section 3583(h), the maximum allowable term of supervised release upon revocation decreased in direct proportion to the term of imprisonment imposed. With a three-year prison sentence, Defendant faced at most eighteen months of supervised release. For every month above an eighteen-month term of supervised release, the court would have needed to shave a month off the three-year prison term. The court concluded that the sentencing calculation is best left to the informed discretion of the district court, so that it may decide in the first instance how to strike the right balance. View "United States v. Gaye" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty in district court to conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud. Defendant’s underlying criminal conduct included facilitating a bribe that resulted in the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association (“COBA”), investing $20 million with Platinum Partners (“Platinum”), a hedge fund that ultimately declared bankruptcy amid government investigations into fraud. Following his guilty plea, Defendant’s case was reassigned to another district judge for sentencing. After his sentencing hearing but prior to his final restitution determination, Defendant moved to have his case reassigned to another district judge. His motion was premised on the recently discovered personal relationship between the district judge in his case and a defendant and a cooperating witness in the ongoing prosecutions against those involved in the Platinum fraud. The district court denied that motion and ordered Defendant to pay restitution to COBA for all of its remaining losses. On appeal, Defendant argued that his case should have been reassigned for resentencing or, in the alternative, that the district court erred in imposing restitution for all of COBA’s losses.   The Second Circuit remanded the case for reassignment to a different district judge and for plenary resentencing. The court held that the district judge erred in not recusing himself under Section 455(a). The judge not only had a close, near-paternal relationship with the witness, but he also advised the witness on how to proceed in his pending criminal case arising from the Platinum fraud. The judge’s relationship with the witness was sufficiently close, and his case was sufficiently related to Defendant’s case that a reasonable person would have questioned the district court’s impartiality. View "United States of America v. Rechnitz" on Justia Law

Appellant motioned the Second Circuit to consider his pro se filing in addition to his counseled brief and to supplement the record. Appellant’s underlying appeal arises from the government’s dismissal, on May 8, 2019, of several indictments against him. Those indictments had been pending since 1999 when Appellant was charged for his alleged role in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi.   The Second Circuit denied Appellant’s motion for the court to consider his supplemental pro se brief and his motion to supplement the record. Further, the court granted the government’s motion or an extension of time to file its brief to a date three weeks after the date of resolution of Appellant’s motion. The court explained that Appellant’s motion to supplement the record does not explain why he did not submit them to the district court. Appellant asked the Court to draw factual inferences from the letter and the declaration—inferences the government contests—but a motion to supplement the record “is not a device for presenting evidence to this Court that was not before the trial judge.” View "United States v. Hage (Mamdouh Mahmud Salim)" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s judgment in his Section 1983 suit arising from those portions of Plaintiff’s imprisonment that occurred as a result of an improper imposition of administrative post-release supervision (“PRS”) by New York State agencies, and subsequent improper imposition of PRS by a New York state court. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in limiting relief to $1 in nominal damages, denying him punitive damages as a matter of law, and granting summary judgment for Appellees on his false imprisonment claim.   The Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s judgment and remanded. The court instructed the district court to consider further whether, under Vincent, compensatory damages may still be available to Plaintiff. Further, the court agreed with Plaintiff that material issues of disputed fact preclude summary judgment. Appellees’ Rule 56.1 statement stated that as of May 30, 2000, the maximum expiration date of Plaintiff’s sentence was February 13, 2008, and as of July 30, 2007, it was June 6, 2008. The court concluded that Plaintiff’s failure in the district court to object to Appellees’ statement of material facts does not preclude him from relying on inconsistencies in Appellees’ own evidence to identify a disputed issue of material fact that made it erroneous to enter summary judgment. The court also concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Appellees on the false imprisonment claim. Finally, the court held that Plaintiff’s challenge to his post-resentencing confinement is precluded by Appellees’ qualified immunity defense. View "Aponte v. Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court’s judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of racketeering conspiracy (Count One); murder in aid of racketeering (Count Two); and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (Count Three). Defendant argued that his Count Three conviction must be vacated because his predicate offense of murder in aid of racketeering was not a crime of violence.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court rejected Defendant’s contention that the VICAR murder statute is indivisible and held that the modified categorical approach applies to the court’s consideration of whether his conviction for murder in aid of racketeering, a substantive VICAR offense, constitutes a crime of violence for purposes of Section 924(c). The court explained that first-degree manslaughter, regardless of whether it may be completed by commission or omission, “can only be committed by a defendant who causes death—the ultimate bodily injury—while intending to cause at least serious physical injury,” necessarily requiring the use of physical force. The court wrote that to hold otherwise would preclude courts from recognizing even intentional murder as a categorically violent crime, an untenable consequence. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted on two counts of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. 18 U.S.C. On appeal, she argued that the government failed to prove that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that the government adduced evidence sufficient to prove that Defendant damaged a protected computer within that District and that venue was, therefore, proper. The court explained that the jury was entitled to conclude that Defendant’s actions impaired the availability of data on the JazzHR system on her supervisor’s computer. The fact that the deletion might also have damaged the Amazon servers located in Virginia and California makes no difference. Thus, the fact that the email addresses of some New Jersey residents were obtained from AT&T’s servers was merely a “circumstance element” that could not support the venue in New Jersey where the “essential conduct elements” of the crime all occurred in other states. View "United States v. Calonge" on Justia Law

Defendants were prosecuted under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”) for conspiring to traffic drugs on the high seas using a stateless vessel. Before ultimately pleading guilty to the offense, Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss their indictments on the ground that conspirators operating from a foreign country who were never physically on the high seas and who had no ties to the United States could not constitutionally be subject to prosecution under the MDLEA.The district court denied Appellants’ motion to dismiss. On appeal, Defendants argued that their prosecution under the MDLEA violated due process because their conduct lacked a nexus with the United States and that, by applying the MDLEA to their conduct, Congress exceeded its Article I powers.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. View "United States v. Antonius" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to drug trafficking in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 841 and 846 and concealment money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). During his plea colloquy, speaking through a Spanish-English interpreter, Defendant repeatedly failed to acknowledge that he had intended to conceal the proceeds of his drug trafficking, an element of concealment money laundering. On appeal, Defendant contends that his conviction for concealment money laundering should be reversed because an insufficient factual basis existed for his guilty plea pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.   The Second Circuit vacated Defendant’s Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) conviction and sentence and remanded. The court explained that the district court’s error is “plain.” In this case, Defendant did not admit to a concealment purpose—an offense element—and the other evidence did not establish that intent either. Thus, it is clear and obvious that Rule 11(b)(3) was not satisfied. Second, the district court’s error prejudicially affected Defendant’s substantial rights. The court reasoned that it appears likely that Defendant would not have pled guilty to violating Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) had he understood its mens rea requirement and been told that he needed to state a concealment purpose. Defendant was consistent and persistent in maintaining that his purpose was otherwise. Last, the plain and prejudicial error seriously harmed the legitimacy of the judicial proceeding. The district court’s acceptance of the guilty plea without Defendant’s acknowledgment that he intended to conceal the source of his funds casts serious doubt upon the “fairness, integrity and public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” View "U.S. v. Aybar-Peguero" on Justia Law

On April 10, 2008, Petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree by a New York state-court jury. The court sentenced him to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of twenty years to life for the murder count and five to fifteen years for the weapon possession count. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent, the Warden of the facility in which Petitioner is imprisoned, moved to dismiss a subset of the claims in the petition on the ground that they were time-barred under 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(d)(1). The district court agreed and entered an order supported by a memorandum decision granting the motion. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and sought a certificate of appealability. The Second Circuit granted a certificate of appealability. Petitioner contends that under Section 2244(d)(1), all the claims raised in his petition were timely because at least one claim asserted therein was timely filed within the applicable one-year limitations period.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The court concluded that Section 2244(d)(1)’s statute of limitations requires a claim-by-claim approach. The court explained that Petitioner’s sole argument in support of his entitlement to equitable tolling is that his lawyer told him the wrong deadline for filing a habeas petition that included the arguments that he advanced in his direct appeal. But this argument has been squarely foreclosed by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling and properly dismissed his claims as time-barred. View "Clemente v. Lee" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, pro se and incarcerated, appealed from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action. The district court dismissed his complaint, concluding that Plaintiff was barred from proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) because he had accumulated three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). At issue on appeal is whether (1) a res judicata dismissal and (2) a dismissal of an entire complaint on several alternative grounds—one of which qualifies as a strike under existing precedent—can constitute strikes under Section 1915(g).   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Section 1915(g) bars a prisoner from proceeding IFP, absent a showing of imminent danger, if on three or more occasions while incarcerated, he has brought an action or an appeal that was “dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” The court reasoned that Section 1915(g) does not provide Plaintiff an opportunity to relitigate his prior cases. The court considered Plaintiff’s remaining arguments and concluded they are meritless. The district court correctly concluded that Griffin was barred by the PLRA’s three strikes provision from proceeding IFP, and, therefore, properly dismissed his complaint. View "Griffin v. Carnes" on Justia Law