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

Defendant plead guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and possession of stolen firearms. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, contending that the district court erroneously applied an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1. The court vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing, concluding that defendant's conviction for statutory rape under New York Penal Law 130.40-2 was not categorically a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2. View "United States v. Van Mead" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess, with intent to distribute, over 1,000 grams of heroin. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 288 months' imprisonment and 10 years' supervised release. The court concluded that defendant's rights were substantially affected and the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings were seriously compromised where defendant's mandatory minimum sentence was miscalculated and where the record reflects that this miscalculation had an impact on the sentence imposed. Due to this plain error, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute Adderall. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's judgment convicting defendant of violating her supervised release by making false statements to a probation officer and leaving the district of her supervision without permission. During the pendency of her appeal, defendant completed her time in custody on the contested adjudication, although her term of supervision had not run. The court concluded that defendant's appeal was not mooted by the expiration of her custodial sentence and that the possibility of a reduced term of supervised release can satisfy Article III's case-or-controversy requirement. On the merits, the court concluded that the district court's conclusion that defendant's violation was willful was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant's remaining arguments are without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wiltshire" on Justia Law

Defendant and his wife were indicted on drug possession and conspiracy charges. Husband moved to suppress evidence of drugs wife was concealing in her vaginal cavity. The district court granted the motion and the Government appealed. The court concluded, pursuant to United States v. Payner, that husband may not suppress on substantive due process grounds evidence obtained as a consequence of an illegal search of his wife rather than himself. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty of one count of possession of a firearm as a felon and subsequently appealed his sentence. The court held that, in determining whether crimes were committed "on occasions different from one another" for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), a court is limited to examining only materials approved by the Supreme Court in Taylor v. United States and Shepard v. United States. The court also held that a court may not rely upon a Presentence Report in determining whether crimes were committed "on occasions different from one another" for purposes of applying the ACCA, where the relevant facts described in the PSR were not derived from sources determined to be consistent with Taylor and Shepard. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Dantzler" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction following a guilty plea to unlawful possession of a firearm, contending that the district court's acceptance of his plea based on the possession of a different weapon from the one identified by the grand jury constructively amended his indictment. Defendant also contended that the district court's failure to inform him of his rights under the Grand Jury Clause prevented him from entering a knowing and voluntary guilty plea. The court concluded that defendant failed to establish that his conviction on the basis of a different weapon plainly constituted a constructive amendment of his indictment, and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Bastian" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for racketeering conspiracy, racketeering, extortion, and receiving unlawful labor payments. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their demands for money from union members by using threats of economic and physical harm. The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of witnesses' beliefs that defendants were connected to organized crime; declining to give Defendant Fazio Junior's requested jury instructions that refined the distinction between a bribe to obtain a preferential treatment and an extortion payment made out of fear of economic loss; and dismissing Juror No. 5 where the juror continued to violate the instructions of the court such that the district court had reasonable cause to believe that the juror could no longer serve according to her oath. The court considered defendants' remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Fazio" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, convicted of attempting to commit a criminal sexual act against his ex-wife and twenty-two counts of criminal contempt for violating a protective order that his ex-wife obtained against him, filed a pro se complaint alleging that he had been convicted in violation of his constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process. The district court construed his amended complaint as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 but dismissed it for failure to allege that he was still in custody, or that he had exhausted his state remedies. The court assumed, without deciding, that plaintiff has a cognizable cause of action directly under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court also considered plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court concluded that, under any of these bases, defendant failed to state a claim of relief where the only actors whom plaintiff asserts violated his constitutional rights are entitled to absolute immunity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court on an alternative ground. The court dismissed without considering the Heck v. Humphrey issues discussed by the district court. View "Teichmann v. State of New York" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Italy, sought review of the BIA's order determining that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) for the unlawful possession of ammunition qualifies as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii). Petitioner argued that his conviction for the unlawful possession of ammunition does not constitute an offense "relating to firearms." The BIA held, however, that the "relating to" parenthetical in section 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii) was purely descriptive and not restrictive, classifying only a subset of the crimes defined in section 922(g)(1) as aggravated felonies. The court concluded that the BIA's descriptive reading of section 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii) is reasonable because it harmonized the broader structure of section 1101(43) and judicial precedent. Under Chevron deference, the court concluded that the BIA's ruling is a permissible construction of the statute. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Oppedisano v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Jamaica, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's order of removability. The court concluded that the record supports the BIA's determination that petitioner's conviction of a controlled substance offense remains a removable offense even after the state court vacated the conviction under ARS 13-907 because she sought and obtained vacatur solely for rehabilitative reasons and to avoid adverse immigration consequences. Consequently, petitioner's conviction remains valid for federal immigration purposes. The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Sutherland v. Holder" on Justia Law