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

The Second Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for securities fraud. The court held that although defendant's misstatements could be found by a jury to be material, the district court materially erred in admitting evidence that the counter-party representative in the sole transaction underlying the count of conviction mistakenly believed that defendant was his agent. Therefore, the evidence was prejudicial and the court could not conclude with fair assurance that the jury would have convicted defendant absent such evidence. Accordingly, the court remanded the judgment of conviction, ordering defendant be released on appropriate bond pending further proceedings. View "United States v. Litvak" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for securities fraud. The court held that although defendant's misstatements could be found by a jury to be material, the district court materially erred in admitting evidence that the counter-party representative in the sole transaction underlying the count of conviction mistakenly believed that defendant was his agent. Therefore, the evidence was prejudicial and the court could not conclude with fair assurance that the jury would have convicted defendant absent such evidence. Accordingly, the court remanded the judgment of conviction, ordering defendant be released on appropriate bond pending further proceedings. View "United States v. Litvak" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated in part the district court's revocation of supervised release and sentence of one year in prison followed by a term of supervised release. In this case, defendant violated the terms of his supervised release by repeatedly testing positive for drugs and failing to report for scheduled drug testing. The court was not persuaded that the imposition of a life term of supervised release -- upon defendant's first revocation -- was reasonable in light of the justifications given by the district court. Given the non‐violent nature of defendant's violations and the difficulty faced by so many offenders in controlling addiction, the court held that his behavior was not so extreme or unusual as to justify a life term of supervised release. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. In this case, the district court denied defendant's motion to suppress two firearms recovered from his property in a warrantless search without probable cause, holding that there was no Fourth Amendment violation because the firearms were found outside the curtilage of defendant's home. The court reversed the denial of the suppression motion. The court weighed the Dunn factors as well as the factors applied to the property in Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 7 (2013), and held that the portion of the driveway in front of defendant's shed formed part of the curtilage, and the search of the area ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Alexander" 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 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