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

Defendant was convicted of possessing cocaine base with the intent to distribute and for possessing ammunition as a felon. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant and therefore rejected defendant's challenges to his conviction and vacated the district court's judgment insofar as it set aside the jury’s verdict as to a portion of that cocaine. The court also concluded that the district court erred in requiring the government to prove that defendant both used and maintained the premises in order to be convicted of using or maintaining a place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(1). Because the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that defendant used the premises for a drug‐related purpose, the court also vacated the district court’s judgment of acquittal on that charge. View "United States v. Facen" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to engage in a racketeering enterprise in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and (d); using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c); and operating an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1955. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of certain predicate racketeering acts; even assuming there was error, defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court's use of the wrong version of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings; and the district court properly denied defendant's motion for a new trial where the newly discovered evidence at issue was essentially more of the same, and therefore cumulative or impeachment evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Vernace" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 46-month sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court affirmed the sentence but wrote to suggest to the Sentencing Commission and the Judicial Conference of the Uniteds States that the Statement of Reasons form included within the statutorily‐required form for the entry of criminal judgments ‐‐ Form AO 245B ‐‐ be amended to bring it into conformity with 18 U.S.C. 3553(c) and Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, a check‐a‐box section of the form, which was checked by the district court in this case, invites sentencing judges to impose a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range simply because the judge finds no reason to depart. View "United States v. Pruitt" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 20 year sentence after pleading guilty to three firearms violations. The court held that there was no error in the district court’s decision not to expressly discuss and reject defendant’s arguments for a downward departure and a variance; the district court’s application of the other‐felony‐offense enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) constituted impermissible double‐counting clearly prohibited by the Guidelines, and that its rulings concerning the obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 and the acceptance‐of‐responsibility adjustment under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1 were not supported by the necessary factual findings; and in light of these holdings, the court did not reach defendant’s argument that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Young" on Justia Law

Defendant, who conditionally plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence recovered and statements made following his warrantless arrest while he was standing inside the threshold of his home. The district court concluded that although defendant was inside the threshold of his home when he was arrested, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred because the police were able to effect the arrest without crossing the threshold themselves. The court concluded that, because it is uncontested that defendant remained inside his home, and was in his home when the officers placed him under arrest, his warrantless arrest in the absence of exigent circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court vacated, reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for drug- and firearm-related crimes, arguing that the district court erred in dismissing a "holdout" juror for cause during the course of jury deliberations, in violation of United States v. Thomas. The court rejected defendant's claim for two reasons: first, the challenged removal is not subject to Thomas’s “any possibility” rule, because the concern underlying Thomas, juror nullification, was not here at issue; and second, defendant waived any challenge to dismissal of the juror in question by specifically telling the district court that he did not object either to its colloquy with the juror or to the juror’s removal, and by in fact recommending the very disposition he now challenges. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Spruill" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of aiding and abetting the removal of a child from the United States with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights, in violation of the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act, 18 U.S.C. 1204, 2. The court held that venue for the prosecution of defendant properly lay in the District of Vermont, his place of arrest, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3238. The court held that conduct comprising the crime of removal of a child from the United States in violation of the Act occurred in its essence outside the United States such that section 3238 provides a basis for laying venue in the district of arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

Defendant Thompson appealed his sentence for drug-related convictions. The court concluded that the district court cannot satisfy United States v. Dunnigan by simply adopting a PSR's conclusory statements that the defendant committed perjury. Rather, the court has allowed a district court to rely on the PSR to impose an obstruction‐of‐justice enhancement only if the PSR “sets forth reasonably detailed findings in support of its conclusions.” In this case, the district court did not make a finding of specific intent to obstruct justice before imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. The court concluded that this error is not harmless because the record does not clearly indicate that the district court would have imposed the same sentence in any event. The court vacated as to this issue and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions stemming from his conduct as a securities broker and trader at a global securities broker-dealer and investment banking firm. The court concluded that there was an insufficient basis for a rational jury to conclude that defendant's misstatements were material to the Department of Treasury and reversed the fraud against the United States and making false statement counts; because a rational jury could conclude that defendant’s misstatements were material, the materiality inquiry - a mixed question of fact and law - was properly reserved for the jury’s determination; defendant is incorrect that “contemplated harm” is a requisite component of the scienter element of securities fraud and the court rejected this challenge; and, in regards to defendant's claims of evidentiary errors, the court agreed that the exclusion of certain proffered expert testimony exceeded the district court’s allowable discretion, and that such error was not harmless. The court vacated the district court's judgment of conviction as to the securities fraud charges and remanded for a new trial. The court also addressed other evidentiary rulings that are likely to be at issue on remand. View "United States v. Litvak" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to kidnap and one count of improperly accessing a computer in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. 1030. On appeal, the government challenged the district court's judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy count and defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction on the CFAA count. Defendant was an active member of an Internet sex fetish community and many of his Internet communications involved discussions of committing horrific acts of sexual violence. Because “[t]he link between fantasy and intent is too tenuous for fantasy [alone] to be probative,”and because the remaining evidence is insufficient to prove the existence of an illegal agreement or defendant’s specific intent to kidnap anyone, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment of acquittal on the single count of conspiracy to kidnap. The court also concluded that the text, statutory history, and purpose of the CFAA permit both the following interpretations: (1) an individual “exceeds authorized access” to a computer when, with an improper purpose, he accesses a computer to obtain or alter information that he is otherwise authorized to access, and (2) an individual “exceeds authorized access” only when he obtains or alters information that he does not have authorization to access for any purpose which is located on a computer that he is otherwise authorized to access. Consequently, the court applied the rule of lenity and adopted the latter construction. The court reversed the judgment of conviction as to the CFAA count. View "United States v. Valle" on Justia Law