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

Defendant, a native and citizen of Barbados, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for illegal reentry in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(2). At issue was whether the Supreme Court's ruling in Vartelas v. Holder required the court to find that defendant was eligible for relief from deportation under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(c). The court held that deeming noncitizens like defendant ineligible for section 212(c) relief merely because they were convicted after trial would have an impermissible retroactive effect because it would impermissibly attach new legal consequences to conviction that pre-date the repeal of section 212(c). In this instance, the court found that the district court erred because defendant was erroneously found to be ineligible for relief under section 212(c). The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Gill" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of conspiracy to distribute with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine. Defendant challenged the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1. The court held that the four statements at issue did not show a willful intent to provide false testimony. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Pena" on Justia Law

Plaintiff's ex-wife, intoxicated and strung out, called the police and falsely accused plaintiff of assaulting her. Plaintiff was charged with assault and resisting arrest. After the charges were dismissed with prejudice, plaintiff filed suit against his ex-wife, the arresting officers, and the City, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. The court held that because arguable probable cause existed to arrest plaintiff, his claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution were properly dismissed; plaintiff's claim for denial of his right to a fair trial was properly dismissed because he failed to meet the required pleading standards; and plaintiff's claims against the ex-wife were properly dismissed because she did not act under the color of state law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Betts v. Shearman, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his federal kidnapping conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he held his kidnapping victim against the victim's will. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that defendant, after tricking his victim into a minivan, intended to continue holding the victim against his will - and so defendant did - before robbing and killing the victim, and leaving his body along the road. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Corbett" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiring to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. On appeal, defendant argued that the indictment to which he pled guilty failed to adequately allege a nexus between his alleged conduct and the United States, as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment before a criminal statute may apply extraterritorially. The court concluded that defendant's argument was waived because the existence of a territorial nexus was not an element of subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Yousef" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction on one count of making false statements to the Government, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of mail fraud. The court held that there was no per se violation of the Sixth Amendment right to be represented by one's counsel of choice and to effective assistance of counsel when a district court, after defense counsel has become incapacitated, appoints counsel, over defendant's objection, to deliver the defense summation, notwithstanding the fact that appointed counsel did not witness the presentation of the evidence. Defendant's Sixth Amendment claim failed because the district court's decision to appoint substitute counsel was reasonable and defendant showed no prejudice arising from that appointment. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to convict on all three counts. View "United States v. Griffiths" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his sentence after pleading guilty to failure to register as a sex offender. Defendant argued that the district court should have dismissed the indictment because at the time of defendant's interstate travel, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250 and 42 U.S.C. 16911, was not applicable to pre-Act offenders such as lot. The court concluded that the Final Rule postdates defendant's travel to Vermont and was therefore not applicable; because the court found that the Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) Guidelines validly extended SORNA's applicability to pre-Act offenders, the court need not decide whether the Interim Rule had the same effect; and defendant's constitutional claims were without merit. The court also concluded that the district court did not commit error by imposing an eight-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2A3.5(b)(1)(C) for commission of a sex offense while in failure-to-register status. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Lott" on Justia Law

The European Community filed suit against RJR, alleging that RJR directed, managed, and controlled a global money-laundering scheme with organized crime groups in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., laundered money through New York-based financial institutions and repatriated the profits of the scheme to the United States, and committed various common law torts in violation of New York state law. The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the federal and state law claims; the court disagreed with the district court's conclusion that RICO cannot apply to a foreign enterprise or to extraterritorial conduct; the court concluded that, with respect to a number of offenses that constitute predicates for RICO liability and were alleged in this case, Congress had clearly manifested an intent that they apply extraterritorially; and, as to the other alleged offenses, the Complaint alleged sufficiently important domestic activity to come within RICO's coverage. The court also concluded that the district court erred in ruling that the European Community's participation as a plaintiff in this lawsuit destroyed complete diversity; the European Community is an "agency or instrumentality of a foreign state" under 28 U.S.C. 1603(b) and therefore, qualified as a "foreign state" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(4); and its suit against "citizens of a State or of different States" came within the diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to charges of transporting, receiving, and possessing child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's determination that his prior state court conviction for Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree in violation of N.Y. Penal Law 130.60(2) subjected him to increased penalties under 18 U.S.C. 2252A(b)(1) and (b)(2) because it constituted a prior conviction under a state law "relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward." Applying the categorical approach, the court had little trouble concluding that defendant's prior conviction subjected him to enhanced sentencing. The court carefully considered defendant's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, arguing that his due process rights were violated because a hearing impairment allegedly prevented him from exercising his Sixth Amendment rights to, inter alia, be present, assist in his defense, and confront witnesses against him. The court held that the Sixth Amendment requires reasonable accommodations for hearing-impaired criminal defendants during judicial proceedings and that such accommodations must be commensurate with the severity of the hearing impairment. Where a criminal defendant does not notify the district court of the impairment, however, he was only entitled to accommodations commensurate with the degree of difficulty that was, or reasonably should have been, clear or obvious to the district court. In this case, the court held that defendant received accommodations commensurate with the degree of difficulty that was, or reasonably should have been, clear or obvious to the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Crandall" on Justia Law