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

Petitioner pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in 2009 and was sentenced to 151 months' imprisonment. Petitioner seeks leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that, although petitioner's section 2255 motion challenging the legality of his 2009 conviction and sentence was previously denied on the merits, his proposed section 2255 motion is not “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) because it seeks only to reinstate his direct-appeal rights and therefore does not challenge the legality of the sentence imposed. Accordingly, the court denied the successive motion as unnecessary and transferred the matter to the district court with instructions that petitioner's section 2255 motion be accepted for filing. View "Carranza v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of criminal possession of a weapon, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court issued a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether habeas relief is warranted on the ground that petitioner's Confrontation Clause right was violated by the state trial court’s order precluding petitioner from cross‐examining his wife, the main witness against him at trial, about her motive for testifying against him. The court concluded that the limitation imposed on petitioner’s ability to cross‐examine the key witness against him at trial was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court Confrontation Clause jurisprudence and the error was not harmless. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions. View "Nappi v. Yelich" on Justia Law

The United States appealed the district court's order suppressing drugs and a firearm seized incident to defendant's arrest. The court concluded as a matter of law that the officers’ observations of defendant walking down a public street, carrying a beer‐sized can wrapped in a brown paper bag, which object he held in a cautious manner so as to avoid spillage, are articulable, objective facts that together provided reasonable suspicion to support a brief stop to investigate whether defendant was then violating a local open‐container ordinance. Therefore, defendant's ensuing arrest and the seizure of contraband incident thereto were not tainted by an unlawful stop warranting suppression of the seized items. The court reversed the suppression order and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Singletary" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of access device fraud, appealed from the district court's judgment sentencing him to pay restitution both to his victims and to third-party providers of compensation for losses arising from his fraudulent activities. Because the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A, limits a defendant’s restitution amount to the actual losses suffered by his victims, and because third-party providers of compensation do not qualify as “victims” whose losses may expand the defendant’s restitution liability, the district court erred in ordering defendant to pay more in restitution than the victims’ actual losses. Therefore, the court vacated the restitution order and remanded for recalculation. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after he plead guilty to violating for the second time the conditions of his supervised release by associating with a convicted felon. Defendant spoke to a member of his sex offender treatment group in the subway after one of their group sessions. The court concluded that the district court failed to state a specific reason for the imposition of an above-Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Aldeen" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former New York State senator, pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud and two conspiracy counts. At issue on appeal was an unsettled question regarding restitution orders and the one‐year limitations period for a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion: Does the limitations period begin to run with an order affirming a conviction and sentence but remanding for recalculation of restitution, or does it begin to run only after the district court enters a revised restitution order on remand? The court held that the limitations period begins to run only when the revised restitution order becomes final. Accordingly, the May 2014 district court order is vacated and the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Gonzalez v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant, while in Venezuela, was convicted in absentia in Colombia of drug manufacturing and trafficking. Defendant was later extradited from Venezuela to Colombia and then the United States later transmitted a formal request to Colombia for the arrest and extradition of defendant to face the charge of conspiracy to manufacture and import five kilograms or more of cocaine into the United States. Defendant subsequently pled guilty to the conspiracy count and was sentenced to 648 months imprisonment, as well as fined $1 million. Defendant, currently 46 years old, challenged his sentence on the ground that it violates the United States government’s assurance that “a sentence of life imprisonment will not be sought or imposed” because the sentence exceeds defendant's life expectancy. The court concluded that any individual right that defendant may have under the terms of his extradition is only derivative through the state. Therefore, defendant would only have prudential standing to raise the claim that his sentence violated the terms of his extradition if Colombia first makes an official protest. Because defendant lacked prudential standing in this case, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Suarez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction of enticement and coercion of others to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity, forced labor and attempted forced labor, fraud in foreign labor contracting, importation of aliens for immoral purposes, inducement of an alien to illegally enter and reside in the United States, and unlawful employment of aliens. On appeal, defendant principally argued that his right to be present at trial was violated by the district court's refusals to adjourn the trial for more than one day or to grant him a mistrial or a new trial, based on its finding that he had waived that right because he intentionally overdosed on prescription medication and was hospitalized, and that his absence was voluntary. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to proceed with the trial in defendant's absence where the district court weighed defendant's "right to be here if he wanted to be here" and the fact that the proceedings had been completed through the presentation of evidence, closing arguments, and the finalization of the instructions to be given to the jury, as well as the district court's assessment that defendant would have nothing to contribute for the final stages of the district court's delivery of instructions and jury deliberations. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial. The court rejected defendant's claim of prejudicial publicity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Yannai" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former CEO and chairman of the board of directors at CUC and former chairman of CUC's successor, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and two counts of making false statements in SEC filings. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. Applying United States v. Owen, the court concluded that the former CUC chief financial officer's testimony did not constitute newly discovered evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Forbes" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and health care fraud, as well as substantive counts of these offenses, and one count of making false statements. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their roles in a decades-long scheme to defraud the United States Railroad Retirement Board into awarding fraudulent disability annuity payments to Long Island Railroad retirees. The court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence as to venue, that defendants cannot succeed on a theory that venue was improperly manufactured, and that no “substantial contacts” inquiry is required where (as here) the defendants did not argue to the district court that prosecution in the Southern District of New York caused them hardship, prejudice, or otherwise undermined the fairness of their trial. The court applied the ordinary rule that the receipt of profits from an economically motivated conspiracy (here, disability pension payments) constitutes an overt act in furtherance thereof, and rejected application to this case of the limited exception, articulated in United States v. Grimm. The court rejected defendants’ challenges to the jury instructions and defendants remaining challenges. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rutigliano" on Justia Law