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

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for money laundering and conducting transactions in property criminally derived through bribery in the Republic of Guinea. The court held that McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016), does not apply to Articles 192 and 194 of Guinea's Penal Code, and therefore defendant's claim that the jury instructions were improper because they did not include the definition of "official act" relative to a bribery conviction necessarily failed.The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of a quid pro quo exchange necessary for defendant's conviction and that he committed an "official act" as defined in McDonnell. Finally, the court held that defendant's remaining evidentiary challenges failed and his other arguments were without merit. View "United States v. Thiam" on Justia Law

Defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, while on board a stateless vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. 70501 et seq.The Second Circuit dismissed the indictment, because the government failed to demonstrate, as required by section 70504, that the vessel was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. In this case, the indictment should have been dismissed upon the government's failure to demonstrate at the pretrial hearing that the vessel was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Furthermore, the error was not cured by defendants' subsequent defective guilty pleas. Accordingly, the court vacated the convictions. View "United States v. Prado" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he pleaded guilty to knowingly accessing child pornography. Defendant argued that the warrant that authorized the use of a government search program called the Network Investigative Technique was invalid.The court agreed with the district court that, regardless whether the warrant violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(b) and the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 636, and whether such violations are also violative of the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officers acted in good faith in applying for and carrying out the warrant. View "United States v. Eldred" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's March 28, 2019 order denying defendant's second bail application and directing that he be detained pending trial. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's May 16, 2019 order, and wrote to explain that decision and to clarify the circumstances under which the Bail Reform Act permits a district court to release a defendant pending trial pursuant to a condition that the defendant pays for private armed security guards.The court expressly held that the Bail Reform Act does not permit a two‐tiered bail system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants are released to self‐funded private jails. To interpret the Bail Reform Act as requiring district courts to permit wealthy defendants to employ privately funded armed guards where an otherwise similarly situated defendant without means would be detained would violate a fundamental principle of fairness. That said, a private-security condition may be appropriate where defendant was deemed to be a flight risk primarily because of his wealth.In the instant appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in finding that no conditions or combination of conditions would reasonably assure his appearance in court. The court held that the district court's finding that defendant posed a risk of flight, as well as the Government's satisfaction of its burden of showing that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure his appearance in court, was not clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Boustani" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendants' sentences of mandatory minimum terms of life imprisonment applicable to convictions for murder in aid of racketeering. Defendants argued that because they were between the ages of 18 and 22 years old when the murders were committed, a mandatory life sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment.The court held that defendants' age-based Eighth Amendment challenges to their sentences failed, because the Supreme Court has chosen to draw the constitutional line at the age of 18 for mandatory minimum life sentences. Furthermore, Defendant Lopez's argument that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because he did not commit the murders directly was foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991). View "United States v. Sierra" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of producing child pornography, and transporting and distributing child pornography. The court held that defendant's contention that the district court erred in ruling that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) Reports 1558963 and 1560137, generated from the two AOL complaints resulting from the challenged searches, were admissible based on its finding that he had consented to AOL's searching his emails, provides no basis for relief, regardless of whether there was consent, for the searches of those emails played no material role in the proceedings. Accordingly, the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress.The court also held that there was no error in the district court's conclusion that defendant could not establish that counsel's decision to not call a witness constituted deficient performance and, even if there was error, there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant's trial would have been any different. Therefore, defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel failed to satisfy either prong of Strickland v. Washington. View "United States v. DiTomasso" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions of multiple counts arising out of their roles in the operation of an illegal Bitcoin exchange and a scheme to use a federal credit union for illegal purposes.The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant Lebedev of wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud; the court rejected Defendant Gross' evidentiary challenges; there was no constructive amendment of the indictment; Gross' claim that his due process rights were violated based on government intimidation of witnesses was meritless; and there was no cumulative effect of the district court's errors causing Gross to be deprive of a fair trial. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err by applying a four level sentencing enhancement for Gross' role as an organizer or leader in the criminal activity under USSG 3B1.1, for commercial bribery under USSG 2B4.1, and for abuse of a position of trust by use of a special skill under USSG 3B1.3. Finally, the district court's findings as to the restitution order were not clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Lebedev" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the police did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by returning to search his car, because both searches of defendant's car were valid inventory searches; contrary to defendant's argument, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit his post‐arrest statements denying ownership of the gun; and defendant's arguments regarding the inadmissibility of the evidence of his gang affiliation and willingness to assist the police either (a) failed because the evidence was properly admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and was not unfairly prejudicial or (b) were waived. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of securities fraud and wire fraud, finding no errors in the district court's jury instructions, admission of lay testimony, and calculation of loss.The court also held that, as a matter of law, forfeiture is not limited to the amount of funds acquired through illegal transactions in an insider‐trading scheme; rather, forfeiture may extend to appreciation of those funds. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's forfeiture calculation and order. Finally, Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018), was decided after defendant's sentence and addressed the categories of fees recoverable under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. Therefore, the court held that a limited remand to recalculate the restitution was appropriate. View "United States v. Afriyie" on Justia Law

The four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G2.2(b)(4) may be applied based on images of sexual activity that would cause the depicted minor to experience mental, but not physical, pain. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment on the question of the four-level enhancement but remanded to the district court for further consideration of defendant's special condition of supervised release that broadly prohibits him from having contact with minors without pre-approval from the Probation Office. In this case, the district court plainly erred by adequately justifying its imposition of the special condition. View "United States v. Bleau" on Justia Law