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

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of the government's motion under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 35(b)(2)(B) to resentence defendant based on his substantial assistance in the prosecution of others. The Second Circuit rejected the government's argument that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.In a separate summary order filed under seal, the court affirmed the judgment on the merits. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of one count of possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of three serious drug offenses. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the firearm, because the officers diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly. In this case, although the officers did not observe any damage to the Public VIN, they did observe considerable damage to the VIN on the registration stickers. This factor, along with the undisputed signs of forced entry, the missing registration, and the driver's suspicious explanations for the condition of his car, gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the car was stolen and that the theft was accomplished using a method specifically designed to evade detection by a Rugby, or similar, report.Furthermore, the duration of the traffic stop was reasonable and consistent, and the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings, which were supported by evidence in the record and appropriately informed by the district court's credibility determinations. The court also held that the district court did not improperly sentence defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), because defendant's prior convictions for attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree were serious drug offenses under the Act. View "United States v. Wallace" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's judgment entered after a jury trial, challenging his conviction for using firearms in the commission of violent crimes, causing death in one case.On remand from the Supreme Court in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), the Second Circuit held that defendant's Count Two conviction for using firearms in the commission of Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy was not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c). Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's conviction as to Count Two. The court affirmed in all other respects and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Barrett" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization (count one) and obstruction of justice (count two). The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction, holding that there was no error in admitting a draft of a letter addressed to his wife that pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State, because defendant failed to prove that he intended the letter to be a marital communication. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of the crimes.The court vacated defendant's sentence, holding that the district court failed to sufficiently articulate its reasoning for imposing the statutory maximum sentence. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Pugh" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court held that the trial court's exclusion of three defense witnesses violated petitioner's constitutional right to present a complete defense. Therefore, the court remanded with instructions to the district court to issue the writ. View "Scrimo v. Lee" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's imposition of a condition of supervised release that required him to perform 300 hours of community service a year over his term of supervision for a total of 695 hours. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his role in two different fraud schemes.The Second Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding that the challenged condition was not reasonably related to any of the relevant sentencing factors, was inconsistent with the pertinent Guidelines policy statements, and involved a greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably needed to achieve the purposes of sentencing. The court held that the pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission must be read to advise that courts should generally refrain from imposing more than a total of 400 hours of community service as a condition of supervised release. View "United States v. Parkins" on Justia Law

Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017), has abrogated the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Chavez, 549 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2008), and permits sentencing judges to consider the severity of mandatory consecutive minimum sentences required by 18 U.S.C. 924(c) in determining sentences for underlying predicate offenses. In this case, the court was uncertain as to whether the district judge was aware of the discretion that Dean allowed him to exercise, and therefore held that the appropriate disposition was to remand for resentencing. In a summary order filed separately, the court affirmed defendant's four convictions. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit held that a district court may apply a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) to a defendant who sells a firearm and drugs to a buyer in a single transaction, and to a buyer who the defendant has reason to believe is a drug dealer. The court considered Defendant Wood's remaining arguments and held that they were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed with respect to Defendant Wood in Appeal No. 18-985. The court affirmed the consolidated appeal of Defendant Ryan in a simultaneously filed summary order. View "United States v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit held that defendants violated plaintiff's constitutional rights and denied qualified immunity to defendants for the week of administratively imposed post‐release supervision (PRS) after plaintiff's determinate sentences had expired.In regard to the period of PRS that plaintiff served from her initial release from prison on October 5, 2007, until her determinate sentences expired on November 27, 2008, the court held that there were material issues of fact as to whether that period of PRS was more onerous than the period of conditional release she would have been subjected to without PRS and consequently whether she was deprived of a liberty interest during that period. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to determine whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed the appeal, remanding for further proceedings. View "Reyes v. Fischer" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of paying and conspiring to pay bribes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, 666, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and gratuities to United Nations officials and of related money laundering. Defendant's charges stemmed from his sustained effort to bribe two U.N. officials to designate one of his properties as the permanent site of an annual U.N. convention.The court held that the word "organization" as used in section 666, and defined by 1 U.S.C. 1 and 18 U.S.C. 18, applies to all non‐government legal persons, including public international organizations such as the U.N. The court also held that the "official act" quid pro quo for bribery as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(1), defined by id. section 201(a)(3), and explained in McDonnell v. United States, does not delimit bribery as proscribed by section 666 and the FCPA. Thus, the district court did not err in failing to charge the McDonnell standard for the FCPA crimes of conviction. Insofar as the district court nevertheless charged an "official act" quid pro quo for the section 666 crimes, that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant, and the jury did not misconstrue the "corruptly" element of section 666 and the FCPA and the "obtaining or retaining business" element of the FCPA. View "United States v. Ng Lap Seng" on Justia Law