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

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

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for attempted sex trafficking of a minor and the possession, distribution, and transportation of child pornography. The court held that defendant was not in custody when the FBI conducted a pre-warning interrogation. In this case, the circumstances and phrasing of the pre‐warning request for cooperation would have constituted an interrogation under Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980), if defendant had been in custody, but under Circuit law, he was not. View "United States v. Familetti" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and decision to uphold petitioner's sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court held that petitioner's prior convictions pursuant to the New York first degree robbery statute satisfied the intent requirement for ACCA predicate offenses under the ACCA's "elements" clause. Therefore, these convictions qualified as violent felonies under the ACCA. View "Stuckey v. United States" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated defendant's sentence of 60 months in prison, nearly three times the top of the Guidelines range, after he pleaded guilty to one count of illegally reentering the United States after having been removed following a conviction for an aggravated felony. In the context of the Sentencing Commission's statistics for illegal reentry cases and all the circumstances here, the court was not persuaded that the justification offered by the district court was sufficient to support the magnitude of the variance. The court also held that there may have been factual errors in the district court's discussion of the record and the district court's reluctance to credit defendant's acceptance of responsibility (although it did so in the end) suggested that the district court may have conflated defendant's statements in mitigation with a failure to accept responsibility. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Singh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez v. United States, ––– U.S. –––, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015), abrogated the Second Circuit's holding in United States v. Harrison, 606 F.3d 42, 45 (2d Cir. 2010). In this case, the court held that the extension of defendant's traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment. Nonetheless, the court held that the good‐faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because the officers reasonably relied on the court's then‐binding precedent. Furthermore, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that the initial traffic stop was valid and that defendant consented to the searches. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law