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

Defendants appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, and wire fraud, as well as postjudgment orders. The Second Circuit held that there was sufficient evidence supporting the jury convictions; the district court did not err in giving the jury a "no ultimate harm" instruction; the district court did not plainly err in charging the jury on the elements of bank fraud; the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving a modified Allen charge to the jury; but the district court abused its discretion in ordering a restitution amount of over $18 million to be paid to the USDA because defendants did not proximately cause financial losses equating to that amount. Accordingly, the court reversed the restitution orders, vacated the conviction to the extent that they ordered defendants to pay restitution, and otherwise affirmed. View "United States v. Calderon" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for arson and possession of unregistered Molotov cocktails. The court held that defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court plainly erred in instructing the jury on attempt; even assuming instructional error, defendant failed to show prejudice; defendant's argument that New York's ban on Molotov cocktails made it impossible to comply with the federal law mandating registration was foreclosed by United States v. Shepardson, 167 F.3d 120, 123‐24 (2d Cir. 1999); the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the custodial statements defendant made to law enforcement; and defendant's challenges to the district court's handling of his criminal history at sentencing were rejected. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendants Albarran and Vasquez pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to distribute heroin, and Albarran also pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.The Second Circuit affirmed Vasquez's 151 month sentence, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by assessing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and acted within its discretion when it sentenced him. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Albarran's motion to withdraw his guilty plea where Albarran has not carried his burden of showing a fair and just reason for withdrawing his guilty plea. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion, because Albarran failed to sufficiently demonstrate his legal innocence or raise a significant question about the voluntariness of his original plea, and the judge reasonably concluded that granting Albarran's belated motion to withdraw would prejudice the government. View "United States v. Albarran" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for engaging in drug trafficking activity, and conspiring to do so, in violation of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. The court held that defendant waived his Confrontation Clause and jury trial right challenges to his conviction by pleading guilty.The court also held that the Due Process Clause did not require a nexus between the United States and the MDLEA violations that transpire on a vessel without nationality. The court explained that such prosecutions are not arbitrary, since any nation may exercise jurisdiction over stateless vessels, and they are not unfair, since persons who traffic drugs may be charged with knowledge that such activity is illegal and may be prosecuted somewhere. The court considered defendant's remaining arguments and found them meritless. View "United States v. Van Der End" on Justia Law

Defendant petitioned for rehearing in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2194 (2019), which held that in prosecutions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2), the government must prove that the defendant not only knowingly possessed a firearm, but also knew that he or she was unlawfully in the United States.The Second Circuit held that the indictment's failure to allege explicitly that defendant knew he was unlawfully in the United States was not a jurisdictional defect. However, the court held that defendant demonstrated all four prongs of the plain error standard in the acceptance of his guilty plea, because the district court failed to advise defendant that the government would need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that he knew that he was illegally present in the United States, or to examine the record to determine whether there was a factual basis for finding such knowledge. View "United States v. Balde" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his challenge to an administrative forfeiture. In this opinion, the Second Circuit addressed and rejected defendant's argument that the Government failed to provide him with adequate notice of the administrative forfeiture action while he was in prison, in violation of his due process rights.The court affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the Government generally must demonstrate the existence of procedures reasonably calculated to ensure that a prisoner receives notice of the forfeiture action. The court agreed with the district court that the Government showed that its notice to the county jail where defendant was detained was reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise defendant of the pendency of the cash forfeiture. View "United States v. Brome" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated defendant's conviction of traveling interstate for the purpose of engaging in illicit conduct with a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b). Defendant had pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement stipulating that when he was 25 years old, he traveled from Rhode Island to Connecticut for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with a young girl he told detectives he believed to be 16 years old when in fact she was younger than 16 but older than 13.The Second Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) is not a strict liability crime. The court held that the statute criminalizes interstate travel "for the purpose of" engaging in a sexual act with someone aged at least 12, not yet, 16, and at least four years the defendant's junior. In this case, defendant believed he was going to have sexual intercourse with a 16 year old and was thus not guilty of violating section 2423(b). The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Murphy" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's finding that petitioner was removable for an aggravated felony. The court held that petitioner's conviction for first‐degree robbery in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 53a‐134(a)(4) is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) and therefore an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1101(43)(F). View "Wood v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions for honest services fraud and honest services fraud conspiracy, conspiracy to violate the Travel Act, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. However, the court held that the district court failed to employ a sound methodology to determine the victim's actual loss for restitution; the district court erred in ordering forfeiture of an amount that exceeded the amount of the criminal proceeds; and, under the circumstances of this case, Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017), did not foreclose ordering defendants jointly and severally to forfeit the proceeds each possessed as a result of their crimes. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Tanner" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by applying a three-level sentencing enhancement for defendant's role in the offense where the evidence supported the district court's findings that he exercised the requisite control and authority over others to qualify as a manager or supervisor, and that the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.The court also did not clearly err by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for committing an offense as part of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood. In this case, considering the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not clearly err by finding that defendant's criminal conduct was his primary occupation and, even if the application of the enhancement was inappropriate, the error was harmless. View "United States v. Moran" on Justia Law