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

Defendant appealed the district court's revocation of his supervised release and sentence. At issue was whether 18 U.S.C. 3583(h), which covers the calculation of the maximum term of supervised release following revocation of a previous term of supervised release, requires that the term be reduced by all prior post-revocation terms of imprisonment imposed on the same underlying offense, or by only the most-recent term of imprisonment. The court held that, when imposing the maximum term of supervised release following revocation of a previous term of supervised release, section 3583(h) requires that the term be reduced by all post‐revocation terms of imprisonment imposed with respect to the same underlying offense, not only by the most-recent term of imprisonment. Accordingly, the court remanded for entry of judgment reducing defendant's term of supervised release. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Appellee, a Swiss criminal complainant, sought from appellants the production of documents relating to the examination of Rajiv Jaitly to provide to a Swiss investigating magistrate overseeing a criminal inquiry into a Bernard Madoff feeder fund in Switzerland. At issue was whether 28 U.S.C. 1782, which authorizes federal courts to order document production for use in certain foreign proceedings, permits discovery for use in a foreign criminal investigation conducted by a foreign investigating magistrate. The court held, based on the plain reading of the statute, as well as the statute's legislative history, that the statute applies to a foreign criminal investigation involving an investigating magistrate seeking documents in the United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order. View "Optimal Investment Serv. v. Berlamont" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for securities fraud in violation of sections 10(b) and 32 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78ff; Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-2, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, 240.10b5-2, and 18 U.S.C. 2; and conspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The court concluded that, in order to sustain a conviction for insider trading, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the tippee knew that an insider disclosed confidential information and that he did so in exchange for a personal benefit; the court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict against defendants because the Government's evidence of any personal benefit received by the alleged insiders was insufficient to establish the tipper liability from which defendants' purported tippee liability would derive, and even assuming that the scant evidence offered was sufficient, the Government presented no evidence that defendant knew that they were trading on information obtained from insiders in violation of those insiders' fiduciary duties; and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment. View "United States v. Newman" on Justia Law

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