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

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not permit a school district to amend an individualized education program (IEP) unilaterally during the thirty-day resolution period. The Act envisions the resolution period as a time for mediation and agreement, not one-sided action. In this case, the first IEP that the school district prepared for the child and presented to the parents indicated erroneously that the child would be placed in a 12-student classroom, which the parents deemed insufficient. After the parents filed a due process complaint, the school district sought to cure this deficiency by unilaterally amending the original IEP to reflect that the student would be in a 15-student class. The district court found in favor of the parents and ordered the school district to reimburse the parents for the private school tuition.The Second Circuit affirmed and concluded that because the school district argues only that it provided the student with a free appropriate education (FAPE) based on her IEP as unilaterally amended during the resolution period, and does not dispute that the unamended IEP denied the student a FAPE, the school district denied the student a FAPE for her 2016-17 school year. Finally, the district court's other conclusions relevant to the reimbursement order are not challenged on appeal and therefore stand unaltered. View "Board of Education of the Yorktown Central School District v. C.S." on Justia Law

The Second Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) as moot. While this appeal was pending, defendant completed his federal prison sentence. The court explained that, although defendant is now on supervised release, he has neither requested that the district court reduce his term of supervision nor advanced any arguments to suggest that such a reduction is warranted. The court noted that dismissal will not result in hardship to defendant. If defendant believes that the arguments that he marshaled in favor of compassionate release would also merit a reduction in his term of supervised release, the court concluded that he is free to make such a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(c). View "United States v. Chestnut" on Justia Law

The United States appeals from the district court's amended judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, vacating defendant's 22-year sentence for Hobbs Act robbery and related firearms crimes and resentencing him to time served. The district court concluded that it had mistakenly applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and the Career Offender Guideline, USSG 4B1.1, in determining defendant's initial sentence because two prior convictions relied on as predicates for those enhancements were for New York first-degree manslaughter, which the district court ruled is not a categorical "violent felony" (ACCA) or "crime of violence" (Guideline).The Second Circuit, rehearing the case en banc, agreed with the United States that first-degree manslaughter is a categorical violent felony/crime of violence because a person can be guilty of that crime—whether by commission or omission—only if he (a) causes death, while (b) intending to cause at least serious bodily injury, and the Supreme Court, in United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157, 169 (2014), stated that "the knowing or intentional causation of bodily injury necessarily involves the use of physical force." Accordingly, the court vacated the panel decision, reversed the district court's grant of the section 2255 motion, and remanded with directions to reinstate defendant's original sentence and judgment. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, seeking vacatur of his 1998 conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). After holding the decision in this case pending disposition of other cases presenting related questions, the court concluded that attempted federal bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), which requires that the attempt be made "by force and violence, or by intimidation," is categorically a crime of violence for purposes of section 924(c)(1) pursuant to United States v. Hendricks, 921 F.3d 320 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 870 (2020).Furthermore, in light of the court's recent decision in Nunez v. United States, 954 F.3d 465, 471 (2d Cir. 2020), the court found untimely and declined to reach the merits of defendant's additional arguments related to his sentencing under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2. In Nunez, the court held that the Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), did not recognize a constitutional right not to be sentenced under the residual clause of the pre-Booker Career Offender Guideline. Therefore, the court concluded that defendant's petition is untimely insofar as it challenges his sentence under that pre-Booker Guideline: the right he now asserts has not yet been recognized by the Supreme Court. The court explained that no decision newly announced and now made retroactive excuses him from meeting the one-year time limitation set out in section 2255(f). View "Collier v. United States" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner sought relief after he had been threatened and beaten by gang members and police officers who urged him to join the gang. The court concluded that petitioner's negative view of gangs does not amount to a "political opinion" within the meaning of the immigration laws, and that substantial evidence supports the BIA's decision that he has not established a likelihood of future torture if he were to be removed to El Salvador. The court considered petitioner's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. View "Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed Defendants Dean and Adam Skelos' convictions on multiple public corruption charges. Dean was a Republican senator from Nassau County, and was the Majority Leader of the New York State Senate. Defendants, father and son, were convicted in 2015 of conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right; extortion under color of official right; conspiracy to commit honest services fraud; and solicitation and acceptance of bribes and gratuities. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their involvement in the Glenwood, AbTech, and PRI schemes.In 2016, while defendants' appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided McDonnell v. United States, which narrowed the definition of the "official act" that a public official must exchange for benefits in order to be convicted of Hobbs Act extortion or honest services fraud, where those crimes have been defined by reference to the term "official act" in the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 201. In 2018, a second jury convicted defendants on all counts.The court concluded that any error in the jury instructions in the wake of McDonnell were harmless; the language in the indictment was sufficient where the language in an indictment is not required to be as precise as the attendant jury charge, nor is it required to delineate how the government will prove the elements set forth in the indictment; the district court empaneled a fair and impartial jury, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to transfer venue; there is no basis to vacate defendants' conviction under 18 U.S.C. 666 where a special verdict form specified that the jury found each defendant guilty under section 666 on both the gratuity theory and the unchallenged bribery theory; the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to quash certain subpoenas and there was no infringement of defendants' Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights in the district court's denial of requests for documents that were irrelevant, inadmissible, obtainable by other means, or part of discovery fishing expeditions; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing. Finally, the court rejected Adam's evidentiary challenges and his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. View "United States v. Skelos" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit certified the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: (1) whether a judgment debtor suffers cognizable damages in tort when its property is seized pursuant to a levy by service of execution that does not comply with the procedural requirements of CPLR 5232(a), even though the seized property is applied to a valid money judgment; and, if so (2) whether the judgment debtor can, under these circumstances, bring a tort claim against either the judgment creditor or the marshal without first seeking relief under CPLR 5240. View "Plymouth Venture Partners, II, L.P. v. GTR Source, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 210 months' imprisonment for obstruction of justice based on destruction of evidence. The Second Circuit concluded that the district court did not make the findings of fact required under United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993), before imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1 relating to defendant's trial testimony. The court remanded in part for further proceedings. The court disposed of defendant's remaining claims in a separate summary order filed simultaneously with this opinion. View "United States v. Rosario" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of the State of New York. The court held that the arbitral panel – which did in fact consider the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) – reasonably concluded that its task in this case was a straightforward matter of contract interpretation not subject to the Secretary of the Interior's approval. The court explained that the panel did not disregard the IGRA, and deferral to the Department of the Interior was not warranted. Therefore, the arbitral panel did not manifestly disregard governing law, and the district court properly confirmed the award. View "Seneca Nation of Indians v. State of New York" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit reversed the district court's grant of final judgment for Mixpac on its claims of unfair competition, infringement of common law trademarks, and its claims under the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) for trademark counterfeiting, infringement of registered marks, and false designation of origin. Mixpac and defendants are competitors in the U.S. market for mixing tips used by dentists to create impressions of teeth for dental procedures, such as crowns.The court disagreed with the district court's holding that Mixpac's trade dress—its use of yellow, teal, blue, pink, purple, brown, and white on mixing tips—is not functional. Instead, the court held that the use of these colors on mixing tips is functional, as the colors signify diameter and enable users to match a cartridge to the appropriate mixing tip. Accordingly, the court remanded for entry of final judgment in favor of defendants on the unfair competition, trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, and false designation of origin claims. The court declined to address defendants' counter claims and to address in the first instance Mixpac's civil contempt claim. View "Sulzer Mixpac AG v. A&N Trading Co., Ltd." on Justia Law