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

Petitioners filed successive habeas corpus petitions challenging their convictions and mandatory sentences imposed by the district court. The district court held that their substantive RICO convictions, on which their Section 924(c) convictions were based, were valid “crimes of violence.”This appeal focuses on their convictions under Count Thirteen of the indictment, which charged them with using and carrying firearms during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c), based on an offense charged in Count One, racketeering activity in violation of RICO.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the jury was instructed that it could base Petitioners’ Section 924(c) convictions upon a predicate offense, which, according to the Supreme Court’s subsequent interpretations of the term, was not a “crime of violence.” The jury’s findings rendered under those (later determined to be erroneous) instructions do not specify whether it found that the defendants committed a variation of New York larceny by extortion that necessarily requires the actual or threatened use of force. Nor did the written jury findings specify whether the predicate offense related to second-degree grand larceny by extortion was the substantive offense or conspiracy or attempt to commit the offense. Nonetheless, reviewing the jury’s verdict in relation to the evidence presented at trial, the court concluded with a high degree of confidence that, if properly instructed, the jury would have predicated Petitioners’ Section 924(c) convictions on a valid crime of violence. View "U.S. v. Colotti" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought a review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal, ordering her removed, and denying her application for cancellation of removal. The BIA ordered that she be removed under 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”). Specifically, the BIA and Immigration Judge (“IJ”) determined that a conviction under Arkansas Code Annotated (“ACA”) Section 5-60-101 is categorically a CIMT.   The Second Circuit reversed. The court concluded that a conviction under ACA Section 5- 60-101 is not categorically a CIMT because the statute criminalizes conduct that is not “inherently base, vile, or depraved.” The court explained that the BIA did not conduct an elements-based categorical inquiry. Instead, it applied an inapposite “realistic probability” test. That test “operates as a backstop when a statute has indeterminate reach, and where minimum conduct analysis invites improbable hypotheticals.” It applies only when there is a match between the state statute and federal standard, but a petitioner posits imaginative scenarios in which the state statute would be violated in such a way that does not meet the requirements of a CIMT. View "Giron-Molina v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction on multiple counts of substantive and conspiratorial Hobbs Act robbery and of the brandishing of a firearm during two crimes of violence (i.e., the charged robberies). Defendant argued that the district court erred (1) in relying on the inevitable discovery doctrine to deny his motion to suppress evidence obtained through warrants supported by concededly defective affidavits and (2) in charging the jury that a gun constitutes a firearm and refusing to give his requested jury instruction.   The Second Circuit vacated Defendant’s firearms convictions. The court agreed with Defendant that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply in the circumstances of this case, and because the conceded misstatements in the affidavits were material to the issuing magistrate judges’ probable cause determinations, remand is required for the district court to conduct a hearing to determine if the challenged evidence was admissible under the standard identified in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). As to the jury charge, the district court erred in instructing the jury that a gun is a firearm. The court wrote that it cannot conclude that this error was harmless as a matter of law. View "United States v. Lauria (Molina)" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances after a search warrant was executed against his residence. The district court denied his motion to suppress the evidence law enforcement seized from the search. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea preserving his right to appeal the district court’s decision. Defendant challenged the search warrant’s validity. He argued that the district court should have given him a Franks hearing because the warrant relies on knowingly false statements in the supporting affidavit.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant has not made a substantial preliminary showing that any of the three statements Defendant scrutinized were false material statements that the Officers knowingly or recklessly included in the search warrant affidavit. He succeeds only at identifying inconsistent statements—and discrete details within them—that is immaterial to a finding of probable cause. Further, Defendant impugns only the CI’s veracity, not the Officers’. Accordingly, the court held that he is not entitled to a Franks hearing. View "United States v. Domenico Sandalo" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a district court judgment imposing, among other things, special conditions of supervised release making Defendant’s internet and computer access contingent on his compliance with computer monitoring terms devised by the U.S. Probation Office. Defendant challenges both the court’s special conditions themselves and the computer monitoring terms they contemplate on procedural reasonableness, substantive reasonableness, and improper delegation grounds.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that although Defendant’s appeal raises legitimate concerns, nearly all of those concerns can be resolved by construing his computer monitoring restrictions to avoid the troublesome implications that, in a few cases, an expansive reading might suggest. The court wrote that although “the defendant, the public, and appellate courts should not be required to engage in guesswork about the rationale for a particular sentence,” it requires no “guesswork” to understand why the district court imposed the conditions it imposed in this case. Given the nature both of Defendant’s underlying offense and of his repeated violations of supervised release, the longstanding general computer monitoring requirement that Defendant has never (including now) objected to, and the officer’s justification for the recommended updates, the district court’s rationale for imposing this sort of computer monitoring program was apparent on this record. Thus, the court discerned no procedural error in the sentence it imposed. View "United States of America v. Kunz" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a jury verdict finding him guilty of nine narcotics and money-laundering offenses, including operating a continuing criminal enterprise (“CCE”). Defendant challenged his conviction primarily on two grounds. First, he argued that his indictment insufficiently stated the CCE count because it did not identify the conduct constituting the “continuing series of violations” that 21 U.S.C. Section 848(c)(2) requires. Second, Defendant argued that the district court improperly instructed the jury when it construed Section 848(b)(2)(A) to allow aggregation of drug amounts across the continuing series of violations rather than requiring that a single narcotics offense “involve” at least 150 kilograms of cocaine.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that the indictment was sufficient under the court’s previous decision in United States v. Flaharty, 295 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2002). The court wrote it was not persuaded by Defendant’s challenge to his indictment because the indictment satisfies the test the court announced in United States v. Flaharty, 295 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2002). In fact, the indictment here is not meaningfully different from the one the court considered in Flaharty. The court agreed, however, with Defendant’s interpretation of Section 848(b)(2)(A). That provision requires the threshold drug amount to be “involved” in a single felony violation of the drug laws. The district court’s interpretation, which permitted aggregation, was erroneous. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence introduced against Defendant. As a result, the court affirmed Defendant’s conviction on all counts. View "United States v. Montague" on Justia Law

In pleading guilty to wire fraud and tax evasion, Defendant agreed to forfeit to the Government his interests in Jreck Subs, a franchised chain of sandwich shops that he used to perpetrate his fraud. Claimants, the Swartz Family Trust and Orienta Investors, LLC filed third-party petitions asserting an interest in the forfeited property. The district court granted the Government’s motions to dismiss the petitions, finding that the Trust’s petition was not submitted before the thirty-day deadline to file such petitions expired and that Orienta failed to state a claim under the forfeiture statute, as either the holder of an interest superior to the Government or as a bona fide purchaser for value. The district court also denied Orienta’s motion for reconsideration, as well as Orienta’s motion for leave to amend its petition.   The court affirmed in part and vacated in part. The court concluded that the Trust’s petition was correctly dismissed as untimely and that Orienta’s petition does not state a claim. The court remanded, however, to allow the district court to further consider Orienta’s motion for leave to amend its petition with respect to its claim that it is a bona fide purchaser for value. The court explained that here, two things potentially tip the scales in favor of granting Orienta leave to amend its bona fide purchaser claim. First, the district court based its dismissal of that claim primarily on a technical issue. Second, the Government acknowledged that additional factual development was necessary to resolve whether Orienta’s petition stated a bona fide purchaser for value claim. View "United States v. Swartz Family Trust" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 2251(a), which prohibits using a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of that conduct. The jury also convicted Defendant of possessing and distributing child pornography based on different images found on his phone. The district court sentenced Defendant to 70 years in prison. Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him on the production charge, that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement based on a finding that he was a repeat and dangerous offender and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant “used” a minor “to engage in . . . sexually explicit conduct” under 18 U.S.C. Section 2251(a) when he filmed himself masturbating near the victim, directed his conduct toward her, and framed the visual depiction to show that she was a passive participant in his sexual activity. Further, the court held that the district court did not clearly err in applying the five-level repeat-and-dangerous-offender enhancement because sufficient evidence supported the finding that Defendant abused the victim. Finally, the court held that Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Osuba" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s judgment sentencing him to 57 months imprisonment following his plea of guilty to one count of wire fraud. Defendant argued that the district court incorrectly applied a two-level obstruction enhancement and improperly denied him a three-level sentence reduction.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that the district court correctly applied U.S.S.G. Section 3C1.1’s obstruction enhancement to Defendant’s sentence and did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant U.S.S.G. Section 3E1.1’s acceptance of responsibility reduction. The court explained that at least two of the forged letters satisfy Section 3C1.1’s materiality requirement, which makes the application of the obstruction enhancement proper. In deciding whether to apply the sentence reduction, a district court considers factors such as the defendant’s “voluntary termination or withdrawal from criminal conduct or associations.” U.S.S.G. Section 3E1.1 application note 1(b). Here, the district court observed that Defendant’s forgery of the sentencing letters resembled the forgeries he submitted as part of the donation scheme, indicating that Defendant had not abandoned his criminal conduct. These were appropriate considerations. View "U.S. v. Strange" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 2251(a), which prohibits using a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of that conduct. The jury also convicted Defendant of possessing and distributing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2252A, based on different images found on his phone. The district court sentenced Defendant to 70 years in prison. Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him on the production charge, that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement based on a finding that he was a repeat and dangerous offender and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that because Defendant took actions designed to depict the minor as the passive recipient of his sexual actions, the court concluded, on the particular facts of this case, that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant used the minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct. The court further concluded that the evidence supported the enhancement and that the sentence was not shockingly high in light of Defendant’s conduct. View "United States v. Osuba" on Justia Law