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

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

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