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

The Second Circuit set aside defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that the government did not waive arguments based on the former "residual clause" of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2); the generic definition of "manslaughter" included the unlawful killing of another human being recklessly; manslaughter in the first degree under New York law, N.Y. Penal Law 125.20(1), was narrower than the generic definition of "manslaughter"; and the district court erred when it found that defendant's prior conviction for manslaughter in the first degree under New York law, N.Y. Penal Law 125.20(1), did not qualify as a "crime of violence" under Application Note 1 of the commentary to Section 4B1.2 of the November 1, 2015 edition of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Castillo" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit denied a petition for a writ of error coram nobis where petitioner sought vacatur of his prior conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, as well as 21 counts of mail fraud, based on his conduct in the rare-coins business. Petitioner contended that newly discovered evidence would undermine the reliability of expert testimony submitted against him at trial. The court held that, given the strength of evidence of defendant's fraudulent activity in support of his sale of coins, the issue he raised as to the government expert's method of valuation did not show circumstances compelling grant of the writ to achieve justice. View "Du Purton v. United States" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit remanded the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), holding that the district court failed to state whether it had made the requisite initial determination that defendant was eligible for a sentence reduction. The court found that the record suggested that the district court erred either by failing to determine defendant's eligibility or by miscalculating the revised Guidelines range, which prejudiced defendant. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit remanded the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), holding that the district court failed to state whether it had made the requisite initial determination that defendant was eligible for a sentence reduction. The court found that the record suggested that the district court erred either by failing to determine defendant's eligibility or by miscalculating the revised Guidelines range, which prejudiced defendant. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Forcing someone to withdraw money from an ATM and then stealing the money has a sufficient effect on interstate commerce to support jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to one count of Hobbs Act robbery. The court held that defendant's robbery fell within the scope of the Hobbs Act because he targeted the assets of a business engaged in interstate commerce. View "United States v. Rose" on Justia Law

When a stay has been issued, an immigrant is not held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1231(a) because he is not in the "removal period" contemplated by statute until his appeal is resolved by this court. The Second Circuit reversed the district court's determination that petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. 1231, holding that petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c). In light of the uncertainty surrounding this area of detention after the Supreme Court's decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018), the court remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the habeas petition under the correct statutory provision. View "Hechavarria v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Amendment protects a prisoner's right not to serve as a prison informant or provide false information to prison officials. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in a First Amendment retaliation claim. Plaintiff alleged that his constitutional rights were violated when he was put on a restricted status known as Involuntary Protective Custody for over six months because he refused the demands of prison guards to act as a snitch, or to falsify his account of a minor incident in the commissary. The court held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the court had not previously recognized the speech and speech‐related activity as protected by the First Amendment. View "Burns v. Martuscello" on Justia Law

A summary order was issued on August 3, 2016 addressing and rejecting most of defendant's claims on appeal. This opinion considered one of defendant's challenges to his conviction regarding Hobbs Act robbery. The Second Circuit found that Hobbs Act robbery was categorically a crime of violence under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3) and therefore affirmed defendant's conviction of violating 18 U.S.C. 924(j)(1), for a firearm‐related murder committed in the course of a crime of violence pursuant to section 924(c). View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of an order of removal based on petitioner's conviction for possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in violation of New York Penal Law. The court rejected petitioner's argument that 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(T) did not set forth the elements of the generic federal crime for failure to appear, because the agency's interpretation, which was contrary to petitioner's interpretation, was entitled to deference; petitioner's related mens rea argument was also without merit; a conviction for failure to appear was an aggravated felony; and thus the BIA did not err in finding that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Perez Henriquez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of an order of removal based on petitioner's conviction for possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in violation of New York Penal Law. The court rejected petitioner's argument that 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(T) did not set forth the elements of the generic federal crime for failure to appear, because the agency's interpretation, which was contrary to petitioner's interpretation, was entitled to deference; petitioner's related mens rea argument was also without merit; a conviction for failure to appear was an aggravated felony; and thus the BIA did not err in finding that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Perez Henriquez v. Sessions" on Justia Law