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

Defendants appeal convictions involving the distribution of controlled substances, conspiracy to distribute and posses with intent to distribute controlled substances, and money laundering conspiracy. At issue was whether an error in giving a conscious avoidance jury instructions was prejudicial to defendants and whether the government must prove that the laundered funds at issue in this case were the profits, rather than merely the gross revenues of one of the defendant's prescription drug sales enterprise under United States v. Santos. The court affirmed defendants' convictions and held that any error in instructing the jury on a conscious avoidance theory was not prejudicial to the defendants where there was overwhelming evidence presented at trial that defendants knew or reasonably should have known that the doctors and pharmacists upon whom they relied were acting in bad faith. The court also held that Santos, as applied to the sale of contraband, permitted a conviction for money laundering conspiracy even absent proof that the laundered funds were profits.

Defendant appealed a judgment following a plea of guilty to illegal reentry into the United States after he was deported to the Dominican Republic when he finished serving his prison sentence for first degree manslaughter. At issue was whether defendant's sentence of 42 months' imprisonment was substantively unreasonable where the defendant claimed that the district court's sentence was unduly harsh in view of the factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and where the 16-level Guideline enhancement applicable to re-entrants with certain prior convictions was not based on review of past sentencing practices and empirical studies, was overly harsh, and was greater than necessary in view of fast track programs. The court held that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered the nature and circumstances of his offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The court also held that the 16-level Guideline enhancement was not substantively unreasonable where defendant's claims were without merit, the sentence was not unreasonably harsh when it reflected the serious nature of offenses, and where sentences in fast-track districts could not be compared with sentences in non-fast-track districts in order to demonstrate that the latter were longer than necessary.