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

Defendant appealed his conviction after pleading guilty to a drug conspiracy count. Prior to the guilty plea, the government filed a prior felony information under 21 U.S.C. 851, alleging that defendant was previously convicted of a drug felony under the New York State Penal Law. Defendant admitted to the fact of a prior conviction and the district court sentenced him principally to the mandatory minimum term of 120 months’ imprisonment. The court joined its sister circuits and held that the United States Attorney need not personally sign a prior felony information and that an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) may do so. In any event, defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice by the fact that an AUSA rather than a United States Attorney signed his information. The court also rejected defendant's argument that the government unconstitutionally contravened an internal Department of Justice policy memorandum, which lists factors relevant to the government’s decision to seek a prior felony enhancement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Strong, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The district court sentenced defendant to 120 months in prison, entered an order of forfeiture in the amount of $2.4 million, and ordered restitution in the amount of $2.4 million. The court concluded that the district court erred in applying the two sentencing enhancements for receiving gross receipts in excess of $1 million from a financial institution pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(16)(A) and for abuse of a position of trust pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.3. In a summary order published contemporaneously with this opinion, the court affirmed the district court’s judgments on the indictment and sentencing enhancement for a loss figure of $8.1 million, and declined to resolve defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "United States v. Huggins" on Justia Law

In 2008, Leonard pled guilty to conspiracies to distribute 100 or more kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846; and to launder the proceeds of that illegal trafficking, 18 U.S.C. 1956(h). While serving a 114‐month prison term, Leonard unsuccessfully sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court reasoned that an amended, retroactive, 97‐121‐month Sentencing Guidelines range was not lower than the 97-121‐month range agreed to in the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. The Second Circuit reversed and remanded. Leonard is eligible for a section 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction because his original sentence was “based on” the Sentencing Guidelines as that statutory phrase was construed by the Supreme Court in 2011, but the extent of the reduction for which Leonard is eligible is narrower than he urges because his “applicable” Guidelines range, as defined by U.S.S.G. 1B1.10 was the 121‐151‐month range calculated by the district court before accepting what was effectively a downward variance to the 97‐121‐month range prescribed in the 11(c)(1)(C) agreement. Leonard is eligible for a reduction of his sentence, but to no less than 97 months’ incarceration. View "United States v. Leonard" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of offenses concerning sex trafficking of a minor and was sentenced to 240 months in prison. The principal issue on appeal is whether information from a GPS can be obtained and used without a warrant to locate a suspect. The court concluded that exigent circumstances justified obtaining and using GPS location information without a warrant. In this case, Sprint had a good faith basis for believing that the disclosure of defendant's cell phone location was necessary to protect a missing child from being prostituted and subject to serious physical injury. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gilliam" on Justia Law

Defendants Ahmed A. Algahaim and Mofaddal M. Murshed appealed their convictions for offenses concerning the misuse of benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps). The court affirmed the convictions and sentence. The court remanded to permit the sentencing judge to consider non-Guidelines sentences in view of the significant effect of the loss enhancement in relation to the low base offense level. View "United States v. Murshed (Algahaim)" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction after pleading guilty to thirteen counts of child‐pornography‐related offenses. Defendant challenged the actual basis supporting his plea as to one of the thirteen counts and the reasonableness of his 480‐month sentence. The Government concedes that the district court committed “plain error” by accepting defendant's plea to the count challenged on appeal and that defendant's conviction as to that count must be vacated, but argues that resentencing is unnecessary. The court concluded, however, that the the error was a so‐called “conviction error,” and thus de novo resentencing is required. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to vacate the erroneous count of conviction and for de novo resentencing. View "United States v. Powers" on Justia Law

Petitioner, pro se, moves for leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition challenging his 2009 New York conviction for burglary and sexual abuse. Petitioner filed multiple section 2254 petitions in the past challenging his conviction, but each petition was dismissed as incomprehensible. The court held that an order denying a section 2254 petition as incomprehensible is “on the merits” for the purposes of the successive‐petition requirements if the petitioner was on notice that the district court considered the section 2254 petition to be incomprehensible, and had an opportunity to cure the defect. In this case, because petitioner's motion for leave to file a successive section 2254 petition is as incomprehensible as the others, he has not made a “prima facie showing” that his application satisfies the section 2244(b)(2) requirements. Accordingly, the court denied the motion. View "Garcia v. Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to challenge his 2007 sentence for Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951. Petitioner, in his plea agreement, agreed “not to file an appeal or otherwise challenge the conviction or sentence in the event that the Court impose[d] a term of imprisonment of 210 months or below.” The district court accepted the plea and sentenced him to 151 months in prison. The court concluded that petitioner's collateral attack waiver bars his motion because the waiver encompasses any challenge to his sentence. Accordingly, the court dismissed the motion for leave to file a successive section 2255 motion. View "Sanford v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder for hire and related charges. Defendant argues on appeal that the district court erred in ruling that certain defense arguments would open the door to the admission of statements made during a proffer session; the district court erred in admitting evidence of prior bad acts; and there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. The court concluded that the district court erred in unduly restricting defendant's ability to defend against the charges, and that such error was not harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rosemond" on Justia Law

Defendant, the owner and operator of a freight service that couriered items to and from the United States and Canada, was found guilty of nine counts of tax-related offenses. Defendant was charged with violating 26 U.S.C. 7212(a), which imposes criminal liability on one who ʺcorruptly or by force or threats of force . . . endeavors to intimidate or impede any officer or employee of the United States acting in an official capacity under this title.” Another portion of the statute, often referred to as the ʺomnibus clause,ʺ imposes criminal liability on one who ʺin any other way corruptly . . . obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration of this title.ʺ On appeal, defendant argued that the court, like the Sixth Circuit, should construe the phrase ʺthe due administration of this titleʺ in the omnibus clause to include only a pending IRS action of which a defendant was aware. The court rejected defendant's argument and joined three of its sister circuits in concluding that section 7212(a)ʹs omnibus clause criminalizes corrupt interference with an official effort to administer the tax code, and not merely a known IRS investigation. The court also concluded that an omission may be a means by which a defendant corruptly obstructs or impedes the due administration of the Internal Revenue Code under section 7212(a). Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error by using the manner of calculating the tax loss and restitution amounts that it did, or by deciding not to apply a two‐level reduction to defendant's base offense level for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Marinello" on Justia Law