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

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possessing child pornography. The court concluded, under its recent decisions in United States v. Barker, that the district court should have applied the categorical approach - not the modified categorical approach - to decide whether defendant's prior conviction under 13 Vt. Stat. Ann. 2602 triggered 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2)'s sentencing enhancement. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the district court was ultimately correct in applying the mandatory ten-year minimum because, under the categorical approach, 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2) was a state law that related to abusive sexual conduct involving a minor under section 2252(b)(2). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Simard" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of receiving and possessing child pornography. At issue on appeal was whether defendant could be ordered to make restitution to one of the victims and, if so, in what amount. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of proximate cause and that the district court reasonably estimated the share of the victim's losses to be attributable to defendant as her total loss divided by the number of persons convicted of possessing her image at the time of the restitution request. The court concluded, however, that the district court abused its discretion by including in its calculation losses that defendant could not have proximately caused and by holding defendant jointly and severally liable for harm caused by defendants who were not before the court. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for recalculation. View "United States v. Lundquist" on Justia Law

Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in a conspiracy that had defrauded American victims through a lottery telemarketing scheme operated out of three so-called "boiler rooms" at different locations in Israel. On appeal, defendant, an American citizen, challenged his conviction of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud through telemarketing. The court concluded that the district court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence gathered through foreign searches and surveillance where ongoing collaboration between an American law enforcement agency and its foreign counterpart in the course of parallel investigations did not - without American control, direction, or an intent to evade the Constitution - give rise to a relationship sufficient to apply the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained abroad by foreign law enforcement. Further, the court concluded that the district court committed procedural error in failing adequately to explain the sentence it imposed. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Getto" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her convictions stemming from her arrest at the border of the United States and Canada where 70,000 pills containing methamphetamine were found in the gas tank of the rental car she was driving. Defendant raised numerous issues on appeal. The court found that the cumulative effect of the various errors - including defendant's improper shackling, the failure to investigate potential juror misconduct, an improper Allen charge, and serious evidentiary errors - undermined the guarantee of fundamental fairness to which defendant was entitled. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Haynes" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 2250(a), which makes it a crime for someone who was required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16913, to travel in interstate commerce and knowingly fail to update his registration. Defendant traveled from New York to Nevada without updating his registration. The court concluded that the constitutionality of SORNA as applied to defendant remained unaffected by any limitations on Congress's Commerce Clause power that could be found in the Supreme Court's decision in Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Robbins" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the restitution order entered against him under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. 3663A. The order awarded over $17 million to victims for losses stemming from defendant's role in the manipulation of the price of a publicly traded security. The court concluded that the district court was authorized to enter the restitution order despite section 3664(d)(4)'s ninety-day requirement; the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution despite the complexity and duration of the restitution proceedings; the district court's decision that it was not required to expand the evidentiary hearings to include the live testimony and cross-examinations of affiants was within its discretion and did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment right to due process; the district court carried its burden under the Act where it credited the government's expert's well-supported proffer of a widely accepted methodology, trained towards a logical measure of loss, and tailored to the particular circumstances of this case; and the court rejected defendant's remaining grounds for appeal which all focused on the accuracy of the amount of the district court's restitution award. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Gushlak" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City and its officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging arrest without probable cause and conduct of a visual body cavity search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that there was "arguable" probable cause and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for plaintiff's false arrest claim under section 1983; defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where a reasonable officer would not have understood that conducting an otherwise suspicionless visual body cavity search of a person arrested for a felony drug offense was unlawful; and plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim failed where plaintiff was in fact guilty of at least criminal possession of a controlled substance. View "Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to charges related to his role in a drug conspiracy. At issue on appeal was whether a plea was "voluntary," under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(2), even though the district court did not inquire into a separate confidential cooperation agreement before accepting defendant's plea. The court concluded that the district court did not commit plain error by doing this because defendant's plea agreement did not depend on the cooperation agreement; the government did not breach its cooperation agreement with defendant; and defendant's ineffective assistance claims were dismissed without prejudice so that defendant could raise these claims in a 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Tarbell" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts relating to illegally bringing an alien into the United States. At issue on appeal was the government's use of evidence that defendant asked to speak to a lawyer when a border patrol agent initiated an interview prior to his arrest. The court concluded that this use of evidence in the government's case in chief violated defendant's rights under the Fifth Amendment and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Okatan" on Justia Law

Four defendants appealed their convictions for planning and attempting to carry out domestic terrorism offenses involving a plot to launch missiles at an Air National Guard base at Stewart Airport in Newburgh, New York and two synagogues in the Bronx. Defendants raise several issues on appeal. The court rejected claims of entrapment as a matter of law, claims of outrageous government conduct and knowing use of perjured testimony in violation of the Due Process clause, and defendants' remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Cromitie (Williams)" on Justia Law