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

Under 28 U.S.C. 2253, in a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.The Second Circuit determined, sua sponte, that it lacks jurisdiction to hear petitioner's appeal because a district court's order denying a certificate of appealability is not an appealable final order. In this case, petitioner moves for a certificate of appealability and for leave to file an oversized motion for a certificate of appealability, challenging the district court's order denying a certificate of appealability. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied petitioner's motion as moot. View "Lasher v. United States" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit denied petitioner's motion to file a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence following his conviction for Hobbs Act robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm pursuant to a guilty plea.The court held that, because Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), resolved only a question of statutory interpretation, it did not announce a new rule of constitutional law as required by 28 U.S.C. 2255(h)(2). Therefore, petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that the requirements of section 2255(h) are satisfied. View "Mata v. United States" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated defendant's sentence and restitution imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The court held that the district court erred at sentencing by applying the commercial bribery sentencing guideline based on an uncharged bribery scheme that the government dropped in exchange for defendant pleading guilty to the wire fraud. The court explained that vacatur is warranted because the court could not be confident, despite the district court's statement to the contrary, that it would have imposed the same sentence had it instead used the correct guideline. The court also held that the district court erred by ordering $19 million in restitution to be paid to the Corrections Officers Benevolent Association, an entity that was not a victim of the convicted conduct under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. The court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Huberfeld" on Justia Law

The district court decided that the government was not authorized under 8 C.F.R. 241.14(d) to continue holding petitioner in immigration detention pending his removal from the United States and ordered the government to release him. The government appealed and argued that section 241.14(d) is not inconsistent with its authorizing statute, 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6), and that it provides adequate procedural due process.The Second Circuit granted the government's motion for a stay pending appeal, holding that the government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its argument that the district court erred in holding that section 241.14(d) is inconsistent with section 1231(a)(6) and does not provide adequate procedural due process. The court also held that the government has made a strong showing of a likelihood of success on its argument that the district court erred in holding that section 241.14(d) is not a permissible reading of section 1231(a)(6). Furthermore, considerations of irreparable harm and the equities favor a stay of petitioner's release pending appeal. View "Hassoun v. Searls" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for six counts of unlawful possession of child pornography.The court held that the police delayed unreasonably long in violation of the Fourth Amendment when they waited without good cause for 31 days to seek a search warrant after seizing defendant's tablet computer. However, the court held that the exclusionary rule does not apply because the police's unreasonable delay was due to isolated negligence and because an objectively reasonable police officer would not have known that the delay amounted to a violation of the Fourth Amendment in light of then-existing precedent. The court also held that defendant's 212 month sentence was not procedurally or substantively unreasonable in light of the large amount of child pornography that defendant possessed as well as his history of sexually abusing children. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of five counts arising from his operation of a prostitution business. The Second Circuit held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized from his Facebook account, because even if the warrants authorizing seizure of that evidence were defective, the officers who collected and reviewed the evidence reasonably relied on them in good faith.The court also held that the government presented sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to find defendant guilty on Counts Two and Five, and that the testimony that defendant challenges was properly admitted non-hearsay. However, the court held that the government failed to present sufficient evidence of venue in the Southern District of New York with respect to Count One, which charged defendant with enticement to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Accordingly, the court reversed as to that conviction and affirmed as to all other counts, remanding for dismissal of Count One. View "United States v. Purcell" on Justia Law

After expungement of his disciplinary record of theft, plaintiff filed suit against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming violations of the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim with prejudice at the pleading stage and then awarded summary judgment to defendants on the due process claims.The Second Circuit held that plaintiff received adequate notice in regard to the charges against him. However, the court held that plaintiff's disciplinary conviction was not sufficiently supported by the evidence and the proceedings were tainted by procedural lapses that violated plaintiff's' due process rights. In this case, the defendant prison officers failed to consult readily available prison records to identify the officers with relevant information, limiting defendant's ability to defend against the charges. The court also held that the district court exceeded the permissible bounds of its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim without providing him a meaningful opportunity to seek leave to amend his complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part. View "Elder v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (Count One) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a narcotics conspiracy (Count Three). The Second Circuit held that defendant has not shown that the error in his conviction on Count Three, made plain by the decisions in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), and United States v. Barrett, 937 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2019), invalidating the stated crime-of-violence predicate for that offense, affected his substantial rights. In light of defendant's willingness to plead guilty to Count Three in order to gain dismissal of Count Two and avoid its mandatory minimum 10-year term of imprisonment, the court held that defendant has not shown any reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty to Count Three in order to secure that beneficial result based on the permissible drug-trafficking-crime predicate alleged in Count Three. View "United States v. Dussard" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal and affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen his immigration case. The court held that Pierre v. Holder, 738 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2013), foreclosed petitioner's claim that the application of former 8 U.S.C. 1432(a)(3) as written violates his right to equal protection. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1678 (2017). Pet. Br. at 14, did not invalidate Pierre.As to petitioner's alternative argument that the BIA must consider in the first instance whether his conviction for assault in the second degree under NYPL 120.05(2) is an aggravated felony crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a), the court held that his argument is precluded by Singh v. Barr, 939 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 2019) (per curiam). View "Dale v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for failing to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2250(a). The court held that the district court correctly held that a defendant in a SORNA prosecution may not collaterally challenge his underlying sex offender conviction. The court also held that circuit precedent precludes the argument that sex offender registration and notification requirements are punitive. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that SORNA does not violate the Fifth or Eighth Amendments. View "United States v. Diaz" on Justia Law