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

The Second Circuit held that the discretionary concurrent sentence doctrine continues to apply when a defendant collaterally attacks one of his convictions, and exercised its discretion to decline review in this case. Petitioner is currently serving numerous concurrent sentences, including two life terms in prison. Petitioner challenges one of his convictions under Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018). The court concluded that, no matter the outcome of his claim, petitioner will remain in prison for the rest of his life on other counts of conviction, and a favorable decision would not shorten the amount of time he will spend incarcerated. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment without prejudice to petitioner renewing the claim if the validity of his life sentences changes in the future. View "Kassir v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to participate in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) (Count One); conspiring to distribute narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (Count Two); and possessing or aiding and abetting the possession of firearms in furtherance of either the racketeering conspiracy or the narcotics conspiracy charged in the prior two counts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (Count Three). The jury specially found that the pattern of racketeering activity charged in Count One encompassed both narcotics and murder conspiracy conduct. The jury also found that a firearm relevant to Count Three was discharged in furtherance of the Count One racketeering conspiracy but was not discharged in furtherance of the separate Count Two narcotics conspiracy. The district court sentenced defendant to 120 months' imprisonment for Count Three, to be served consecutive to his concurrent 120-month sentences for Counts One and Two.The Second Circuit concluded that its recent decisions in the wake of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), preclude section 924(c) from being applied to a murder conspiracy. Therefore, given the possibility that defendant's section 924(c) conviction was based on murder conspiracy conduct rather than on a qualifying drug-trafficking offense, the court held that his conviction on Count Three is invalid. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's section 924(c) conviction and remanded for further proceedings. The court rejected defendant's contention that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions on the racketeering conspiracy and narcotics conspiracy charges. View "United States v. Heyward" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony but remanded for resentencing. For the reasons stated in a summary order filed simultaneously with this opinion, the court held that (1) the challenged rulings of the district court at trial were not an abuse of discretion, and (2) although it was clearly erroneous not to require the government to prove that defendant knew of his status as a felon, that error does not warrant reversal.In this opinion, the court held that, contrary to the conclusion of the district court, NYPL 120.05(1) is a "crime of violence" under the force clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(1) in light of the court's recent decision in United States v. Scott, 990 F.3d 94, 99 (2d Cir. 2021) (en banc). In Scott, the court made clear that a predicate offense is to be categorically recognized as a "crime of violence" under section 4B1.2(a)(1) where conviction requires that the defendant "intentionally caus[e] at least serious physical injury—crimes necessarily involving a use of force—. . . whether committed by acts of omission or by acts of commission." View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed Defendants Eldridge and Allen's convictions and sentences for offenses arising from their participation in a drug-dealing enterprise that operated in Buffalo, New York, from 2003 to 2005.The court concluded that the district court’s decision to install a waist-high black curtain around the defense tables before trial did not violate defendants' rights to a fair trial. The court further held that, although United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), and United States v. Barrett, 937 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2019), have invalidated at least one of the three theories upon which Eldridge's second 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction might have been premised, Eldridge has failed to show that any error affected his substantial rights in light of the evidence supporting the third, valid theory—namely, that Eldridge participated in an attempted Hobbs Act robbery. In reaching this conclusion, the court held that even in cases where an unpreserved claim of error is based on a supervening change in case law, the defendant bears the burden of establishing all four prongs of the plain-error standard. Finally, the court held that Section 403(a) does not apply to Eldridge because the district court imposed his sentence before Congress passed the First Step Act, and that the pendency of his direct appeal does not change that fact. The court affirmed defendants' remaining claims in a separate summary order. View "United States v. Eldridge" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a civilly confined person under Article 10 of the New York Mental Hygiene Law, filed claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging the constitutionality of aspects of his Article 10 proceedings. The district court dismissed the complaint because he filed his claims after the expiration of the applicable three-year statute of limitations. During the pendency of his appeal, the Second Circuit has deducted court fees from plaintiff's institutional account at the Central New York Psychiatric Center pursuant to the filing fee requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) that applies to a "prisoner" proceeding in forma pauperis. Plaintiff now moves for restoration of those fees.The Second Circuit granted plaintiff's motion for restoration of fees deducted from his patient account and directed the Clerk of Court to refund those fees and to cease further collections. The court concluded that plaintiff, as a civil detainee who completed his criminal sentence, was no longer a "prisoner" under the PLRA when he filed his lawsuit. Therefore, he is not subject to the fee provisions under the PLRA. View "Jones v. Cuomo" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a petition for habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted by a jury in state court of first degree manslaughter. The court concluded that the admission of the autopsy report at petitioner's trial through a surrogate witness was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 40 (2004); Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009); and Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011). Furthermore, the unreasonably erroneous admission of the autopsy report was not harmless where the report was the strongest evidence in the State's case and was not cumulative of other inculpatory evidence connecting petitioner to the victim's death. View "Garlick v. Lee" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's final order finding that petitioner was removable as a non-citizen convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude based on its determination that New York petit larceny constitutes such a crime.The Second Circuit certified the following question to the New York State Court of Appeals: Does an intent to "appropriate" property under New York Penal Law 155.00(4)(b) require an intent to deprive the owner of his or her property either permanently or under circumstances where the owner's property rights are substantially eroded? View "Ferreiras Veloz v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit followed the logical course charted by longstanding precedent to reach two conclusions with respect to 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2): first, the "agent" of a federally funded organization need not have control over the federal funds, and the agent need not work in a specific program within the organization that uses those federal dollars; and second, the "business" of a federally funded organization need not be commercial in nature.The court affirmed Defendants Dawkins and Code's conviction for conspiracy to commit bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 666(a)(2), as well as Dawkins's conviction of substantive bribery in violation of section 666(a)(2). Defendants' convictions stemmed from their involvement in a scheme to bribe basketball coaches at NCAA Division I universities in exchange for the coaches' agreement to steer their student-athletes toward Dawkins's sports management company after leaving college and becoming professional basketball players.In this case, the court concluded that the superseding indictment properly alleged a violation of section 666(a)(2); the Government proved a violation of section 666(a)(2) where section 666(a)(2) does not require a nexus between the "agent" of a federally funded organization and the federal funds the organization receives, and the bribes paid by defendants to the university basketball coaches in exchange for influence exerted over student-athletes were "in connection" with a university's "business;" the statute is constitutional as applied to defendants; the district court did not abuse its discretion when making the challenged evidentiary rulings; and the district court made no reversible errors in providing the challenged jury instructions. View "United States v. Dawkins" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and concluded that the Government's refusal to make a 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) motion based on its valuation of defendant's cooperation was not an unconstitutional act. The court held that section 3553(e) gives the Government a power, not a duty, to permit a district court to depart from a mandatory minimum based on a defendant's substantial assistance. Absent some other showing of unconstitutionality, it is not unconstitutional for the government to conclude that a defendant's assistance is worthy of a USSG 5K1.1 motion but no more based on its internal assessment of the costs and benefits of a further departure.The court also held that the Government did not act in bad faith. Where an agreement reserves to the Government the sole discretion to determine whether and how to value the cooperation of the defendant, the Government need not express dissatisfaction with the defendant's assistance to conclude that a section 5K1.1 motion but not a section 3553(e) motion is appropriate based on the Government's good faith valuation of the defendant's cooperation. The court remanded for resentencing with instructions that the case be reassigned. View "United States v. Trimm" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's 20-year term of supervised release imposed after defendant pleaded guilty to child pornography charges. The court found no procedural error in the district court's failure to separately explain the basis for the term of supervised release after discussing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in imposing a term of imprisonment. The court explained that nothing in section 3553(c) or its caselaw requires a district court to undertake a separate recitation of the basis for each part of the sentence imposed. Where, as here, the district court explains the basis for imposing a term of imprisonment, the court concluded that it need not repeat the process in imposing a term of supervised release. The court also concluded that defendant's term of supervised release was substantively reasonable in light of the obvious ongoing risk defendant poses to children. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law