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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his application for adjustment of status and order of removal. At issue was whether petitioner was eligible to adjust his status to legal permanent resident (LPR) status on any basis other than marriage to his K-1 visa sponsor. Because petitioner was originally admitted to the United States on a K-1 nonimmigrant visa, he could not adjust his status to that of a full LPR on any basis other than marriage to his original K-1 visa sponsor. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Caraballo-Tavera v. Holder" on Justia Law

Taxpayer appealed a decision of the Tax Court that disallowed her deduction for donating a "facade conservation easement" to the National Architectural Trust on the ground that there was no "qualified appraisal" within the meaning of Treasury Regulation 1.170A-13(c)(3). The court concluded that the Trust's agreement to accept the gift of the easement was not a transfer of anything of value to the taxpayer and thus did not constitute a quid pro quo for the gift of the cash. The court also concluded that the appraisal satisfied the regulatory specifications and vacated the Tax Court's judgment, remanding for further proceedings. View "Scheidelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed from the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate his conviction or correct his sentence on the principal grounds that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel, and (2) from the denial of his motion for reconsideration. The court vacated so much of the July 2009 Order as summarily rejected petitioner's biased-investigator ineffective assistance of counsel claim and remanded to the district court for further proceedings on this claim, including such proceedings as could be necessary for the court to determine whether to appoint counsel to represent petitioner in connection with this claim. The court declined to address petitioner's remaining issues. View "Matthews v. United States" on Justia Law

The government appealed from the district court's decision vacating defendant's conviction of one count of attempted enticement of a minor and grant of his motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. The government argued that the district court erred because the deviation between the text of the indictment and the jury charge neither affected the "core criminality" proven at trial nor modified an "essential element" of the crime, nor did it leave defendant open to be charged again for the same offense. The court agreed with the government's contentions and therefore reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. D'Amelio" on Justia Law

This case arose from a trademark infringement suit involving the sale of counterfeit versions of defendant's hoisin sauce. The district court subsequently imposed sanctions in fees and costs pursuant to FRCP 11 against plaintiffs and their attorneys in favor of defendant. The attorneys appealed, contending that the district court erred in its application of Rule 11. Defendant cross-appealed, contending that the district should have awarded substantially more in fees and costs and moved to sanction the attorneys for filing a purportedly frivolous appeal. The court held that the safe harbor requirement under Rule 11 was satisfied in these circumstances; the attorneys have failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the action was frivolous; nor have the attorneys shown that the district court abused its discretion in deciding to impose monetary sanctions. The court rejected defendant's arguments on cross appeal and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Star Mark Mgmt., Inc. v. Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd." on Justia Law

In these parallel cases, separate petitions were filed requesting the district court to set a "reasonable" rate after ASCAP and BMI were unable to agree on licensing fees with DMX, a provider of background/foreground music. In both cases, the district court adopted DMX's proposals. The court held the Second Amended Final Judgment (AFJ2) permitted blanket licenses subject to carve-outs to account for direct licensing and the court rejected ASCAP's claim that a blanket license with an adjustable carve-out conflicted with the AJF2. The court concluded that the district court in both cases found that ASCAP and BMI did not sustain their burdens of proving that their proposals were reasonable; no legal error contributed to these findings and the findings supported by the record were not clearly erroneous; and in both instances, the district court had the authority to set a reasonable rate for DMX's licenses. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in setting DMX's licensing rates with ASCAP and BMI and that the rates set by the district court were reasonable. View "Broadcast Music, Inc. v. DMX Inc.; American Society of Computers, Authors and Publishers v. THP Capstar Acquisition Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney admitted to practice in New York, appealed from an order of the district court dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Section 25(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78y(a)(1), provided a comprehensive remedial scheme that required plaintiff to appeal an SEC debarment order to a court of appeals. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that Section 25(a) did, under this Circuit's precedent, supply the jurisdictional route that plaintiff must follow to challenge the SEC action in this case. View "Altman v. SEC, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted on charges arising from an elaborate, years-long financial fraud. Defendant Gowing continued to take actions in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud even after he was arrested and released awaiting trial for that same charge. On appeal, Gowing principally argued that the district court's application of 18 U.S.C. 3147 was error because he did not commit a separate or additional offense while on release, but only continued to commit the conspiracy. Because the statute did not make such a distinction, and because Gowing's other sentencing arguments were without merit, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Gowing" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from the district court's holding that defendants were liable to plaintiff in the total amount of $4,965,898.95 for profits earned in short-swing insider trading and from an order denying defendants' motion for reconsideration. At issue, inter alia, was the rarely-construed "debt exception" to liability under Section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78p(b), and the treatment of "hybrid" derivative securities under Section 16(b). The court agreed with the district court that the acquisition of the 2004 Note was a purchase of a security for purposes of Section 16(b), that the conversion of the 2004 Note was also a Section 16(b) purchase, and that neither of these purchases came within the debt and borderline transaction exceptions to section 16(b) liability. The court further concurred that Tonga and Cannell Capital, in addition to Cannell, were subject to disgorgement of profits, and the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of transporting into his state of residence a firearm acquired in another state in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3). Defendant appealed on the ground that section 922(a)(3) violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The court held that, in light of the ample alternative means of acquiring firearms for self-defense purposes, section 922(a)(3) did not impose a substantial burden on the exercise of defendant's Second Amendment rights. Since section 922(a)(3) did not burden defendant's Second Amendment rights in a away so substantial as to justify heightened scrutiny, his facial challenge to the statute also must fail. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Decastro" on Justia Law