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

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of conspiracy to violate and one count of violating, attempting to violate, and aiding and abetting the violation of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(2), (c). The court held that the AECA did not unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority to the executive; the district court did not err in instructing the jury on the conduct required to find "willfulness" and "conscious avoidance"; the district court did not violate defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment and the Court Interpreters Act (CIA), 28 U.S.C. 1827–28, to waive the assistance of an interpreter; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring that defendant be provided the assistance of a court‐appointed Mandarin interpreter throughout trial. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of conspiracy to violate and one count of violating, attempting to violate, and aiding and abetting the violation of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(2), (c). The court held that the AECA did not unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority to the executive; the district court did not err in instructing the jury on the conduct required to find "willfulness" and "conscious avoidance"; the district court did not violate defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment and the Court Interpreters Act (CIA), 28 U.S.C. 1827–28, to waive the assistance of an interpreter; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring that defendant be provided the assistance of a court‐appointed Mandarin interpreter throughout trial. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit held that the district court lawfully denied defendant's motion for attorney's fees and other litigation expenses under the Hyde Amendment of 1997. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that the standard of review applicable to the appeal of a district court's denial of a defendant's application for attorney's fees and other litigation expenses pursuant to the Hyde Amendment was abuse of discretion. The court adopted the reasoning by the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Truesdale, 211 F.3d 898, 905–06 (5th Cir. 2000). In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's application and concluding that the position of the United States was not vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith, since no controlling precedent foreclosed the government's theory of prosecution and some language in the court's case law arguably supported it, and since defendant's other arguments against the government's case, including those not expressly addressed above were meritless. View "United States v. Larson" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing of the original panel decision in United States v. Martinez, 862 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2017). Petitioner argued that the original panel erroneously ruled that his statute-of-limitations defense had been waived for failure to assert it at or before his trial and claimed that he had in fact raised the defense prior to trial by joining in pretrial motions asserted by a codefendant. The court held that the codefendant's motion that petitioner purported to join asserted a statute-of-limitations defense that relied on the personal conduct of that codefendant, did not mention the conduct of petitioner, did not assert the principles on which petitioner sought to rely, and asserted premises disavowed by petitioner in his appeal. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis in three appeals challenging judgments under the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), denial of leave to bring suit in forma pauperis, dismissal of his complaint without prejudice to his filing a new action with payment of the filing fee, and barring him from filing future actions in forma pauperis while a prisoner unless he was under imminent threat of serious physical injury. The court held that plaintiff had more than three strikes and has not met section 1915(g)'s exception to application of the three-strikes rule, and thus denied his arguments to the contrary. View "Akassy v. Hardy" on Justia Law

28 U.S.C. 2255 jurisdiction does not reach the restitution part of a sentence where, as here, the restitution cannot be deemed custodial punishment. It is not the amount of restitution alone but, rather, the terms of payment that identify those rare cases in which a restitution order might equate to custodial punishment. The Second Circuit held that, because the challenged judgments in this case contemplate the payment of restitution on schedules yet to be set by the district court, defendants could not show on the present record that their restitution obligations were custodial punishments for purposes of section 2255 review. Therefore, the court vacated the judgments reducing restitution and remanded for reinstatement of original judgments. View "United States v. Rutigliano" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's imposition of an additional four years of supervised release and a special condition that defendant refrain from consuming any alcohol whatsoever while under supervision. The court held that the imposition of the additional four years of supervised release was not substantively unreasonable and defendant's arguments arguing to the contrary lacked merit. The court also held that the district court's imposition of a total ban of the consumption of alcohol was not reasonably related to the nature and circumstances of defendant's offense. Finally, the drug testing special condition was entirely appropriate under the "zero tolerance" policy. View "United States v. Betts" on Justia Law

First degree robbery in violation of Connecticut General Statutes section 53a‐134(a)(4) qualifies as a "violent felony" under the so‐called elements clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(i). The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and of the ACCA, holding that defendant's three prior convictions were for offenses "committed on occasions different from one another" within the meaning of section 924(e)(1). View "United States v. Bordeaux" on Justia Law

Three defendants found by a jury to have engaged in a criminal conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A) challenged their convictions, contending that venue did not properly lie in the Southern District of New York, the place of their prosecutions. The Second Circuit affirmed their convictions, finding that, although the bulk of their joint criminal activity took place in the U.S. Virgin Islands and in Florida, the defendants’ activities and knowledge of the related travel to New York by one of the conspirators, who had left Florida with drugs obtained through the conspiracy and traveled to the New York area with plans to sell the drugs there, sufficed to support venue in the Southern District as to each defendant. The court upheld the denial of three suppression motions, which were based on searches resulting from DEA wiretaps, a protective sweep search of the master bedroom in the Florida residence in which a defendant was arrested, and a search of that defendant’s business, pursuant to a warrant. The court rejected a contention that the government failed adequately to disclose impeachment evidence regarding its lead witness and arguments that the court improperly calculated the defendants’ Guidelines ranges. View "United States v. Yuk" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for drug-related offenses based on the district court's failure to inform defendant of the immigration consequences of his plea. In this case, the district court acknowledged defendant's concerns regarding serious potential immigration consequences of his guilty plea, but took no action to remedy an earlier oversight or to inquire further. Therefore, the district court's failure to inform defendant violated his substantial rights. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Gonzales" on Justia Law