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

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court concluded that defendant was not eligible for a reduction under section 3582(c)(2); the mandatory minimum applicable to defendant had not been displaced, and the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, did not apply to defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Davis (Johnson)" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges related to his involvement in a scheme to defraud Chase Bank. At issue in this appeal was the district court's order of forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. 982(a)(2). The court concluded that section 982 required forfeiture of the gross receipts attributable to the criminal violation, not only the profits. The court also concluded that, in light of defendant's near total control over the companies and their assets, defendant "indirectly" obtained the Chase loan proceeds and could be held accountable for criminal forfeiture of those proceeds under section 982. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Peter" on Justia Law

Appellant, a convicted sex offender, appealed a condition of supervised release which required him to participate in an approved program of sex offender evaluation and treatment, which could include plethysmograph examinations, as directed by the probation officer. The court held that this extraordinary invasive condition was unjustified, was not reasonably related to the statutory goals of sentencing, and violated appellant's right to substantive due process. Accordingly, the court vacated the condition. View "United States v. McLaurin" on Justia Law

Defendant, a reputed international arms trafficker was convicted of conspiracy to kill United States nationals; conspiracy to kill United States officers and employees; conspiracy to acquire and export a missile system designed to destroy aircraft; and conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Defendant raised numerous issues on appeal. The court concluded that, in the absence of actual animus or shocking conduct akin to coercion or a violation of defendant's person, an international sting operation of the kind undertaken in this case did not constitute either vindictive prosecution or outrageous government conduct; government application of "coercive political pressure" on a foreign government to secure a defendant's extradition did not render that defendant's prosecution improper; the district court correctly rejected defendant's claim that his prosecution violated the doctrine of specialty; and the indictment sufficiently charged defendant with conspiracy to murder United States nationals and conspiracy to murder United States officers and employees, notwithstanding that the indictment did not refer explicitly to "murder." Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's conviction and remanded for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error. View "United States v. Bout" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of distributing child pornography. On appeal, the United States appealed from that part of the judgment sentencing defendant to 30 months' incarceration. The court concluded that the application of the five-year minimum sentence mandated by 18 U.S.C. 2252(b) was not so grossly disproportionate to the crime here as to be precluded in this case by the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and, in exercising its sentencing discretion in this case, the district court could not impose a lesser prison sentence than the statutorily mandated minimum. The court also concluded that, in calculating a defendant's Sentencing Guidelines range for distributing child pornography, a pattern enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(5) applied to a defendant who committed any two acts fitting the Guidelines definition of "sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor," without regard to the temporal proximity of those acts, the defendant's own minority at the time of such acts, or mitigating circumstances; because a computer was not essential to the crime of distributing child pornography, the computer-use enhancement provided in U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(6) did not constitute impermissible double counting; and because neither the statute of conviction nor the applicable Guideline was limited to distribution crimes, the distribution enhancement under 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) did not constitute impermissible double counting. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Reingold" on Justia Law

Respondents appealed the district court's grant of habeas relief to petitioner, convicted of drug conspiracy and possession charges, because petitioner's attorneys had failed to discuss with him a critical plea option that likely would have resulted in a sentence significantly lower than that actually imposed. The court concluded that the state court's determination that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that his first attorney was a coconspirator was not, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2), based on an "unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented," and therefore affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's conflict of interest claim. The court also concluded that in granting the habeas petition on the ground that petitioner was not made aware of a particular plea option, the magistrate judge and district court misread the state court's decision denying that claim. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's decision because the state court's finding that petitioner was made aware of another, more favorable, plea option was not an unreasonable determination of the facts. View "Cardoza v. Rock" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a conviction of illegally reentering the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a)(2) and (b)(2). The court concluded that defendant's statute of limitations defense failed where he was not "found in" the United States in 2002, as he argued, but was instead "found" here in 2010. The court also concluded that defendant's ineffective assistance claim failed where the IJ relied upon multiple grounds for denying defendant relief and the court did not think clearly erroneous the district court's finding that evidence of defendant's cooperation was before the court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Press intervenors appealed the district court's decision denying them access to court proceedings and a sealed internal police document (Report) and continuing to redact parts of hearing transcripts. The court concluded that the district court erred by declining to order release of the full transcript of the contempt hearing, but that given the minimal relevance of portions of the Report that were not testified to at the contempt hearing to the substance of that proceeding, the Report did not become a judicial document to which the First Amendment right applied. Accordingly, the court affirmed as to the Report, reversed as to the hearing transcript; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Newsday v. County of Nassau" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, representative of the estate of her deceased son, filed suit against the City of New York, police officers, and others, alleging that they were liable for her son's death. A jury found in favor of defendants. The court held that, where a municipality acted in a governmental capacity, a plaintiff could not recover without proving that the municipality owed a "special duty" to the injured party. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving a special relationship, and where the plaintiff failed to meet this burden, the analysis ended and liability could not be imputed to the municipality that acted in a governmental capacity. The distinction between nonfeasance and misfeasance was irrelevant to the analysis and the existence of a special relationship was a question of law that could be properly submitted to the jury. In this instance, the court found no error entitling plaintiff to a new trial and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Velez v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction on both counts of a superseding indictment where a jury found him guilty of bank fraud and unlawful use of another person's means of identification in relation to the bank fraud. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his involvement in an operation to use names and identification documents of other persons to open bank accounts funded with forged checks and withdraw proceeds. The court concluded that, notwithstanding the failure of defendant's indictment to name the persons whose means of identification were used in the commission of bank fraud, the indictment was constitutionally adequate. The court also concluded that defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to postpone the trial date upon the filing of the superseding indictment to allow him additional time to prepare to meet the new charges was without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stringer" on Justia Law