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

The Second Circuit held that the evidence at trial was sufficient to prove defendant's possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The court also held, as a matter of first impression, that the New York offense of robbery in the second degree constitutes a "crime of violence" as that term was defined in the United States Sentencing Guidelines before August 1, 2016. Therefore, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the BIA's retroactive application of a new rule expanding the types of larceny that qualify as a crime of moral turpitude. The Second Circuit granted the petition for review and reversed the BIA's latest order issued on remand. In this case, the BIA issued Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga, 26 I. & N. Dec. 847 (B.I.A. 2016), on the same day that it dismissed petitioner's appeal. The court considered the factors in Lugo v. Holder, 783 F.3d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 2015), to determine that the BIA could not apply the new rule in Diaz-Lizarraga retroactively. In light of the second and third Lugo factors, the court found that Diaz-Lizarraga was an abrupt departure from BIA precedent and that petitioner relied on the previous rule when pleading guilty. The court then applied the categorical approach and the BIA's pre-Diaz-Lizarraga standard for larceny crimes involving moral turpitude, and held that the BIA erred when it found that petitioner's larceny conviction constituted such a crime. View "Obeya v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit reversed the district court's order suppressing statements that defendant made to law enforcement authorities in the course of a non-custodial interview on March 4, 2015. The court reviewed the totality of the circumstances as reflected in a videotape recording of the interview at issue and held that defendant's statements were not coerced. In this case, the police did not falsely promise defendant immunity from prosecution in return for his cooperation and, in the absence of such a promise, nothing demonstrated that defendant's will was overborne during his non-custodial interview as to render the statements he made at that time constitutionally involuntary. View "United States v. Haak" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine. The court held that although the evidence demonstrated that defendant was a relatively minor participant, neither the jury instructions nor the evidence resulted in a constructive amendment of the indictment; any variance from the indictment that occurred did not affect defendant's substantial rights and therefore was not prejudicial; and defendant's remaining arguments were without merit. View "United States v. Dove" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for failing to register as a sex offender, in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250(a). The court held that a SORNA offense begins under 3237(a) in the district that the defendant leaves, not in the district where the defendant's interstate travel ends and in which the defendant ultimately fails to register. In this case, venue was proper in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) because defendant's interstate journey began in the SDNY. The court also held that SORNA was not void for vagueness and SORNA did not violate defendant's constitutional right to travel. View "United States v. Holcombe" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) and Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that the district court correctly determined that defendant was ineligible for a sentence reduction, where there was no change to the bottom-line, final range that was the basis for defendant's sentence because of the operation of another guideline -- the grouping rules provided in USSG 3D1.4. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that USSG 1B1.10(b)(1) unambiguously did not support defendant's interpretation, and thus the rule of lenity did not apply. View "United States v. Carosella" on Justia Law

21 U.S.C. 853(n) proceedings are civil and thus governed by the time limits in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), which are jurisdictional because they implement the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 2107. The clock starts to run at the issuance of the first order and does not reset at the issuance of the second order. In this case, the Second Circuit held that appellants did not file their notice of appeal within sixty days of the district court's order, as required by Rule 4(a). Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Ohle" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for five counts of drug-related charges. The Second Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court and dismissed with prejudice the indictment on all related charges against defendant, holding that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated by his nearly seven years of pretrial detention. The court noted that the pretrial detention experienced by defendant appeared to be the longest ever experienced by a defendant in a speedy trial case in the Second Circuit. View "United States v. Tigano" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to misappropriate and sell property of AOL and was ordered to pay AOL restitution. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion for a reduction of his remaining restitution obligation by amounts recovered by AOL in civil litigation against other persons. The district court concluded that defendant failed to show that those amounts recovered by AOL were compensation for the same loss caused by defendant or that AOL has been fully compensated for the loss caused by him. The Second Circuit considered defendant's contentions and found that they were without merit. The court affirmed the judgment and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that justice required that defendant have the burden of proving that recoveries by AOL in civil litigation were for the same loss that he caused and that AOL has been compensated in full for the loss defendant caused. View "United States v. Smathers" on Justia Law

The district court entered judgment against defendants, awarding plaintiff nominal damages for each of the six months during which the district court ruled that defendants had unreasonably delayed in requesting a state trial court to resentence him and impose a term of PRS after such a term had been administratively imposed. Plaintiff appealed the district court's ruling that the state officials were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim for additional damages. The Second Circuit vacated the award of $300 in nominal damages for the three months after June 3, 2008; affirmed the award of $300 in nominal damages for the three months after September 1, 2008; and remanded for entry of a revised judgment and reconsideration of the amount of attorney's fees. The court affirmed as to plaintiff's appeal. View "Hassell v. Fischer" on Justia Law