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

Plaintiffs brought suit against Forman Holt, a debt collector within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6), alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692g. Plaintiffs alleged that Forman Holt's collection notice violated the FDCPA by stating that plaintiffs could only dispute the validity of a debt in writing. The district court granted Forman Holt's motion to dismiss, concluding that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that section 1692g(a)(3) did not impose a writing requirement that required the consumer debtor to notify the debt collector in writing in order to dispute the validity of the debt. View "Hooks v. Forman, Holt, Eliades & Ravin, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony and was sentenced pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), to a mandatory minimum term of fifteen years imprisonment. Petitioner subsequently sought review of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, arguing that changes in state law that lowered the maximum sentence applicable to a prior state court conviction rendered him no longer subject to sentencing under the ACCA. The court held that petitioner's prior drug convictions counted as a predicate "serious drug offense" under the ACCA. Coupled with the pair of violent felonies (robbery and attempted assault), petitioner's criminal record included three ACCA predicate felonies. Thus, the district court did not err by imposing the sentencing enhancement and, therefore, properly denied petitioner's motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rivera v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint alleging that his conditions of confinement amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court concluded that the district court erred by dismissing plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. First, he plausibly alleged conditions that, perhaps alone and certainly in combination, deprived him of a minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. Second, he plausibly alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to this deprivation. Third, he plausibly alleged violations of clearly established rights. In light of the specific allegations here, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Walker v. Schult" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction, seeking vacatur of the judgment and dismissal of the indictment with prejudice on the ground that he was not retried following an earlier mandate of this court within the time prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(e). The court concluded that, however preferable section 3161(e) findings extending the time for retrial to be made within the initial 70-day retrial period, the statute itself did not impose such a requirement. For that reason, and because the court identified no error in the district court's decision to grant an extension to 180 days or in its determination that defendant was tried within that time, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Shellef" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's grant of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) pursuant to Amendment 750 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that the district court did not err in declining to apply a downward variance to sentence defendant below the reduced Guidelines range. Under U.S.S.G. 1B1.10, the district court did not have discretion to apply the variance to which defendant asserted he was entitled. In spite of defendant's arguments to the contrary, U.S.S.G. 1B1.10 bound the district court, was a valid exercise of the Commission's authority, and did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., requirements for the promulgation of formal rules. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Erskine (Johnson)" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm and body armor as a convicted felon, arguing that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Defendant relied on recent Supreme Court opinions developing a more expansive interpretation of the Amendment. But in both of these opinions, the Supreme Court clearly emphasized that recent developments in Second Amendment jurisprudence should not "be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons." Therefore, the court joined every other circuit to consider the issue in affirming that section 922(g)(1) was a constitutional restriction on the Second Amendment rights of convicted felons. View "United States v. Bogle" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal with prejudice plaintiff's complaint seeking indemnification for property loss caused by fire under an insurance policy. At issue were two provisions in the policy: one requiring the insured to file suit on the policy within two years and the second requiring the insured, seeking replacement costs, to replace the damaged property before bringing suit, and to complete the replacement work as soon as reasonably possible. Because New York law did not clearly resolve the question of what happens to insured property that could not reasonably be replaced within two years, the court certified the question to the New York State Court of Appeals. View "Executive Plaza, LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner, an attorney, appealed pro se from the tax court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner and sustaining a proposed levy to collect outstanding income tax liabilities owed by petitioner and his wife for the 2000, 2001, and 2002 taxable years. The court concluded that petitioner's argument that the settlement officer with the IRS Appeals Office abused his discretion by issuing a determination on the proposed levy without first affording petitioner an in-person collection due process hearing was without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Williams v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Following remand from a prior appeal, the district court determined that defendant's breach of two contracts proximately caused injury to Carco. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court's findings were erroneous because proximate causation did not exist, and that various determinations as to damages, fees, costs, and interest were derivatively, as well as independently, in error. Carco challenged certain aspects of the district court's calculation of the attorneys' fees awarded to Carco and the denial of prejudgment interest on that award. The court vacated and remanded Carco's breach of contract claim for further determinations regarding proximate causation and quantification of Carco's damages on its contract claim, and, if appropriate, the related question of the applicability of an offset to any resulting damages award. To the extent any damages, fees, costs, and interest awards were based on the breach of contract cause of action, they were also vacated. All damages, costs, and interest awards based on Carco's faithless servant claim were affirmed. The twenty-percent reduction and denial of interest on attorneys' fees were reversed. The court instructed the district court to recalculate the award of attorneys' fees in light of those reversals and in light of its findings with respect to proximate cause on Carco's contract claim. View "Carco Group, Inc. et al. v. Maconachy" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 750 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. Rather, the district court had the discretion to conclude that a sentence of 168 months was as low as the circumstances warranted, even in light of the lower Guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law