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

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count 1) and possession of a controlled substance (Count 2). The court affirmed defendant's conviction on Count 1. However, the court could no say that it was an absolute impossibility for a person with his hands securely handcuffed behind his back to extract a substantial quantity of crack cocaine from his person or clothing and wedge it into the space where the quantity was found - the space between the back of the back-seat cushion and the bottom of the back-seat rest in the police car - without leaving a trace of cocaine on his fingers or clothing, but the court could say that the possibility of such an occurrence was so exceedingly remote that no jury could reasonably find beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant's conviction as to Count 2. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being voluntarily present and found in the United States, arguing that he was not in the United States when he was found. The court concluded that, although defendant had indisputably been present in the United States illegally for nearly a decade, defendant was not "found" while has in the country. When he was found - admittedly not long after his departure from the United States - defendant had neither a physical nor a legal presence in the country. When defendant had been "found" at the Canadian border, he had been returned involuntarily with neither a desire to enter, nor a will to be present in, the United States. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, concluding that defendant was not "found in" the United States within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1326. View "United States v. Vasquez Macias" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Jamaican citizen, pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 77 months' imprisonment, arguing that the district court lacked the authority to deny the Government's motion for a departure under U.S.S.G. 5K3.1. The court affirmed, concluding that the plain text of section 5K3.1 foreclosed defendant's arguments and holding that a district court may, but need not, depart downward upon an appropriate motion by the Government under section 5K3.1. View "United States v. Shand" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his sentence of 72 months' imprisonment for participation in a conspiracy to violate the federal narcotics laws and for participating in a money-laundering conspiracy. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to compel the government to provide him with a recommendation letter under U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 or 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) pursuant to a Cooperation Agreement where the government had a good-faith belief that defendant had breached the Agreement by committing further crimes and exercised its discretion in deciding not to file the motion. The court also held that defendant's sentence was neither substantively nor procedurally unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed suit alleging that three masked correction officers (COs) sprayed him while he was in his cell with an unknown substance, apparently a mixture of fecal matter, vinegar, and machine oil. The COs were retaliating against plaintiff for reporting several prior assaults. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(c). The court was unwilling to accept, as a matter of law, the proposition that spraying an inmate with a mixture of feces, vinegar, and machine oil constituted a de minimis use of force. Even assuming arguendo that the physical force allegedly used was de minimis, spraying an inmate with the mixture was undoubtedly "repugnant to the conscience of mankind" and therefore violated the Eighth Amendment. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the complaint plausibly alleged violations of his constitutional rights and that the applicable statute of limitations did not preclude plaintiff from amending his complaint to name certain John Doe defendants. View "Hogan v. Fischer" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions stemming from their involvement in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine and heroin. Defendants sought to suppress the evidence gathered with the aid of GPS data, arguing that the placement and tracking violated the Fourth Amendment. The court declined to reach the issue of whether the search was unconstitutional because it found that the government's actions in this case fell within the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule pursuant to Davis v. United States. The court found defendants' remaining arguments were without merit and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Aguiar" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of fraudulently using access devices to obtain items valued at $1,000 or more. Defendant appealed his sentence of 27 months' imprisonment. The court concluded that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that his appeal waiver was enforceable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Coston" on Justia Law

Defendants, three GE employees, were convicted of offenses related to their involvement in a scheme to fix below-market rates on interest paid by GE to municipalities. The court reversed the convictions and remanded to the district court for dismissal of the indictment, holding that the government did not allege overt acts within the limitations period. View "United States v. Grimm" on Justia Law

Defendant, a licensed medical doctor, was indicted on seven counts of sexual exploitation of children and twenty-nine counts of health care fraud. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to quash grand jury subpoenas directed to his adult children and the denial of reconsideration of the motion. The court held that the district court's orders did not fall within the small class of rulings encompassed by the collateral order doctrine and were not otherwise final. Because they were not final decisions within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1291, they were not immediately appealable. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Punn" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions related to their involvement in the robbery of a pharmacy. Defendant Taylor argued that he was incapacitated when he incriminated himself post-arrest and the admission of his statements violated his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. The court concluded that Taylor's post-arrest statements were not voluntary; admitting the statements into evidence was not harmless; the court vacated and remanded for a new trial; the admission of Taylor's statements, to the extent they could be used against Defendants Rosario and Vasquez, was not harmless error as to them; and the court vacated Rosario and Vasquez's conviction and remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law