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

Petitioner, convicted of burglary charges, appealed the district court's judgment adopting the Report and Recommendation of a magistrate judge denying his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court agreed with petitioner that the district court erred in deferring to the state court’s determination that he failed to preserve his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by not raising it on direct appeal in his state court proceedings. The court also concluded that, upon further development of the factual record, petitioner may be able to demonstrate constitutionally unreasonable performance of his counsel during the plea process. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fulton v. Graham" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3162(a)(2), was violated when the district court allowed eleven months of unexcluded time to accumulate while defendant remained in custody with his suppression motion under advisement. In light of the seriousness of the Speedy Trial Act violation in this case, the absence of any explanation beyond mere administrative neglect weighs in favor of dismissal with prejudice; the sheer length of delay at issue here was presumptively prejudicial; and, given the extended administrative neglect by the district court and the government in allowing the case to stagnate for almost a year while defendant was incarcerated, the court concluded that the government’s interest in administering justice by prosecuting defendant’s firearms offenses is outweighed by the impact that permitting reprosecution would have on the administration of justice and of the Speedy Trial Act. Accordingly, the district court's determination to order dismissal of defendant's indictment without prejudice was an abuse of discretion. The court reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment with prejudice. View "United States v. Bert" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's grant of defendants' motions to suppress evidence obtained after the stop and search of their vehicle on an interstate highway. The district court determined that the police officer who conducted the stop lacked reasonable suspicion to conclude that a traffic violation had occurred under the relevant state law.  The court concluded, however, that the officerʹs observation of several of defendantsʹ vehicleʹs wheels twice touching or crossing the solid painted line separating the right lane of the highway from the shoulder gave rise to reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation had occurred. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions. View "United States v. Diaz" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to aiding and abetting: carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2119; and the brandishing of a firearm during a crime of violence, i.e., the carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The court held that defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting a violation of section 924(c) was supported by his admission that he knew that a firearm was being used during the carjacking and thereafter aided and abetted the carjacking. Further, the court held that the district court did not err in failing to depart downwardly from the Sentencing Guidelines because of defendant's confinement in decrepit and unsafe conditions of confinement at the Nassau County Correctional Center. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for sex trafficking, forced labor, and alien harboring and transportation charges. The court held that the district court's exclusion of evidence of the victims’ other sexual behavior did not violate defendants’ right to present a complete defense and to confront witnesses. The court also concluded that, while the sex trafficking jury charge was error, that error, given the evidence in this case, was harmless. However, the court concluded that the sentences imposed were procedurally unreasonable. The Government concedes that certain of the sentences imposed exceeded the statutory maximum and thus constitute procedural error warranting remand as to those sentences. The court further concluded that there were additional procedural errors in the sentencing proceeding, including an incorrectly imposed mandatory minimum, and a full resentencing is warranted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions, and vacated the sentences, remanding for resentencing. View "United States v. Rivera" on Justia Law

Defendants, Narcisa Veliz Novack and her brother Cristobal Veliz, appealed from convictions of numerous offenses related to defendants' participation in an association-in-fact Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.c. 1962, enterprise with the primary purpose of assaulting Novack's husband and her mother-in-law. The court rejected Veliz's argument that his conduct did not violate 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(3) because solicitation to murder does not constitute the use or attempted use of “intimidation, threat[s], or corrupt[] persua[sion].” The court held that solicitation of a third party to murder a witness constitutes attempted corrupt persuasion under the statute. The court further concluded that the evidence that Veliz had committed multiple related crimes across multiple states was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that communication with a federal investigator was reasonably likely. The court rejected Veliz's argument that his witness-tampering convictions must be vacated because he has not shown reasonable probability that the challenged instruction affected the jury’s verdict. Finally, the court rejected Veliz's contention that the inclusion of the term "physical force" in the jury charge constructively amended the indictment because the government’s theory of guilt was consistent from indictment to summation and the jury clearly based its verdict on the conduct charged in the indictment. The court addressed and rejected the remaining challenges in a summary order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Veliz" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of healthcare fraud and aggravated identity theft, appealed the district court's orders granting the government writs of garnishment directing that certain monies owned by defendant, but in the control of third parties, be transferred to the United States to satisfy his restitution obligations. Defendant argued that the attorney representing him at the writ of garnishment hearing labored under a conflict of interest in violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and that the district court committed plain error in failing to inquire as to the alleged conflict. The court found that there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a writ of garnishment hearing brought to satisfy restitution or forfeiture judgments, and the district court thus did not have a duty to inquire. The court further concluded that, while the imposition of restitution falls within a defendant’s criminal proceedings, a writ of garnishment is a civil remedy falling outside the scope of the Sixth Amendment’s protections. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cohan" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the government's restraint of his property, including his cars and two bank accounts, during his prosecution on wire fraud charges. The court found merit in defendant's claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the government seized his assets without seeking a warrant, and that there has been no judicial finding as to whether probable cause supports the forfeitability of the seized assets. The court held that exigent circumstances do not support the government’s indefinite seizure in the absence of a warrant and, therefore, the court vacated the district court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate the order and remanded for the district court to determine whether probable cause supports the forfeitability of defendant's assets. View "United States v. Cosme" on Justia Law

Defendants Gioeli and Saracino appealed from convictions of crimes committed as members of the Colombo crime family. On appeal, Gioeli argued that: (1) his guilty verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence; (2) the government’s failure to disclose statements by a confidential source until after trial constituted a Brady violation; (3) the government’s seizure of certain materials from his home violated the Fourth Amendment, and those materials should have been suppressed; (4) two of the three racketeering acts the jury found to have been proven against him were multiplicitous; and (5) the government’s conduct throughout the investigation and prosecution of this case was so outrageous that it violated his due process rights. Saracino also challenged the district court’s Brady ruling and further argued that: (1) the court erred in denying his motion for severance; and (2) the court violated his constitutional rights at sentencing by, inter alia, taking into account uncharged crimes and crimes of which he had been acquitted, and erred by doing so without holding a hearing pursuant to United States v. Fatico. The court resolved all of defendants' arguments in the government's favor and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gioeli" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from judgments following a jury trial convicting them of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud in connection with the sale of coins and conspiracy to engage in money laundering. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of experts or its decision that the admission of their testimony does not warrant a new trial. The court concluded, however, that the district court failed to review de novo the recommendations of the magistrate judge for restitution and forfeiture. The court concluded that defendants' remaining arguments lacked merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects except that the matter is remanded for de novo review of the magistrate judge's reports and recommendations concerning restitution and forfeiture. View "United States v. Romano" on Justia Law