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

Absent updated guidance from the Sentencing Commission, the First Step Act freed district courts to consider any potentially extraordinary and compelling reasons that a defendant might raise for compassionate release.The Second Circuit vacated the district court's denial of compassionate release to defendant and remanded for further proceedings. In this case, the district court erroneously concluded that, despite the First Step Act's changes to compassionate release, the previously enacted USSG 1B1.13, Application Note 1(D) remained good law and limited the applicable circumstances the court could consider, without input from the Bureau of Prisons, to matters of poor health, old age, and family care needs. Rather, the court held that Application Note 1(D) does not apply to compassionate release motions brought directly to the district court by a defendant under the First Step Act. View "United States v. Zullo" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiring to distribute cocaine base and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, but vacated two challenged conditions of supervised release and remanded in part.The court held that defendant's guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon remains valid, even in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), because it is plain that defendant knew of his unlawful status when he possessed the firearm and there is no reasonable probability that he would have not pled guilty had he been properly informed that such knowledge was a requirement for conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(g). The court also held that there was no error at sentencing in the district court's consideration of potential sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants, and defendant's 90-month sentence was not procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Finally, the court held that the two disputed conditions of supervised release imposed on defendant are not unconstitutionally vague, but the court remanded (1) the risk condition so that the district court can formally incorporate its oral amendment of that condition into the written judgment of conviction, and (2) the communication condition so that the district court may provide the necessary justification for restricting defendant's communications with his brother, or exempt such communications from that condition. View "United States v. Bryant" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action on behalf of members and descendants of the Ovaherero and Nama indigenous peoples against the Federal Republic of Germany, seeking damages for the enslavement and genocide of the Ovaherero and Nama peoples in what is now Namibia, as well as for property they alleged Germany expropriated from the land and peoples.The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Germany is a foreign sovereign; the only path for the exercise of jurisdiction is if a FISA exception applies. FSIA’s takings exception, 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(3), provides that a foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts in cases "in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property or any property exchanged for such property is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or that property or any property exchanged for such property is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality is engaged in commercial activity in the United States.” The plaintiffs’ allegations were insufficient to trace the proceeds from property expropriated more than a century ago to present‐day property owned by Germany in New York. View "Rukoro v. Federal Republic of Germany" on Justia Law

After the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme collapsed, Picard was appointed under the Securities Investor Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 78aaa (SIPA), as the liquidation trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS). The Act established a priority system to make customers of failed brokerages whole before other general creditors. Where customer property is insufficient to satisfy customers' claims, the trustee may recover property transferred by the debtor that would have been customer property but for the transfer if and to the extent that the transfer is void or voidable under the Bankruptcy Code. 15 U.S.C. 78fff–2(c)(3). The provisions of the Bankruptcy Code apply only to the extent that they are consistent with SIPA.Picard attempted to recover transfers of money that the defendants had received from BLMIS in excess of their principal investments. The defendants are BLMIS customers who were unaware of the fraud but profited from it by receiving what they thought were legitimate profits; the funds were actually other customers' money. The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Picard. The Bankruptcy Code affirmative defense that permits a transferee who takes an interest of the debtor in property "for value and in good faith" to retain the transfer to the extent of the value given does not apply in this SIPA liquidation. The transfers were not "for value" and recovery would not violate the two-year limitation. View "In re: Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed two special conditions of his supervised release stemming from his conviction for making a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation to FBI agents. The conditions prohibit him from: (a) engaging in conduct online that "promotes or endorses violence"; and (b) possessing or using a computer or other internet-capable device without participating in a monitoring program operated by the U.S. Probation Office.The court concluded that the challenged conditions satisfy the "reasonably related" requirements of USSG 5D1.3(b)(1) and accord with the court's caselaw interpreting that provision. However, the court concluded that because of the vagueness of the condition prohibiting him from engaging in violence-promoting speech online in its present form, it infringes upon his rights to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. View "United States v. Bolin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Medicare beneficiary who uses a Continuous Glucose Monitoring device (CGM) to manage his Type I diabetes, sought Medicare coverage to offset the costs associated with his CGM. After the Medicare Appeals Council rejected plaintiff's requests for coverage, he challenged the adverse decisions in federal court. The district court concluded that two of the three challenged decisions failed to meet the $1,500 amount-in-controversy threshold for federal court jurisdiction and that the Medicare Act did not permit plaintiff to cure the jurisdictional deficiency by aggregating the three separate amounts.The Second Circuit held, based on the text of the statute and reinforced by its regulatory and legislative history, that the Medicare Act does not prohibit plaintiff from aggregating his claims for the first time in district court. Therefore, the district court erred in refusing to let plaintiff aggregate his claims to satisfy the Act's amount-in-controversy requirement. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bloom v. Azar" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was shot in the stomach by Officer Miller in the course of Miller's execution of a no-knock search warrant, plaintiff filed suit alleging that he was the victim of negligence on the part of both Miller and other police personnel involved in the planning of the raid.The Second Circuit concluded that there was no error in the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to overturn the jury verdict in favor of Miller; in regard to the City's motion, the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on the basis of New York's bar on claims for "negligent investigation," because that rule does not apply to plaintiff's claim; and plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that the City, through its employees, violated acceptable police practice, so that discretionary immunity did not apply, and those violations caused his injury.However, the court found conflicting guidance from the New York Court of Appeals as to whether the district court correctly held that plaintiff's claim was barred by New York's "special duty" rule. Therefore, the court certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Does the "special duty" requirement—that, to sustain liability in negligence against a municipality, the plaintiff must show that the duty breached is greater than that owed to the public generally—apply to claims of injury inflicted through municipal negligence, or does it apply only when the municipality's negligence lies in its failure to protect the plaintiff from an injury inflicted other than by a municipal employee? View "Ferreira v. City of Binghamton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the individual defendants conspired against him in arbitration and judicial proceedings arising out of an employee compensation dispute.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint based on failure to state a claim and declined to address the applicability of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to his claims. In this case, plaintiff's claims against Justice Farneti are barred by absolute judicial immunity; plaintiff's allegations of a corrupt agreement, which rest on rank speculation, are inadequate to support his conspiracy claims under RICO and section 1983; and plaintiff's allegations that the private defendants made false statements in their various filings and in the course of testifying in the arbitration and Article 75 proceedings cannot support a claim of a substantive RICO violation. Furthermore, the court stated that it may assume hypothetical statutory jurisdiction in order to resolve this appeal on the merits because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not implicate Article III jurisdiction. The court explained that doing so is particularly appropriate in this case, where the jurisdictional issue is both novel and arguably complex, while plaintiff's claims are plainly meritless. View "Butcher v. Wendt" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of two counts of insider trading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b–5. The court held that defendant had a duty to refrain from trading on nonpublic inside information and that the evidence was sufficient to convict him. In this case, defendant served as a principal investigator for a clinical trial of a cardiac drug developed by Regado Biosciences, a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company, that was designed to prevent blood clotting. After defendant learned that patients suffered adverse effects during the trial, he traded on that nonpublic inside information to avoid a loss and earn a profit in the shares of the company. The court concluded that, taken together, the evidence of defendant's deceptive activity was sufficient for the jury to find that he was a sophisticated investor that knew his actions were unlawful under the charge given by the district court. Finally, there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's evidentiary rulings. View "United States v. Kosinski" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision affirming the Board's conclusion that Aleutian violated certain statutory and regulatory requirements governing the H-1B temporary foreign worker program, and order requiring Aleutian to pay back wages to two Program workers.The court held that agency regulations duly promulgated under the statute unambiguously require H-1B employers to make wage payments in "prorated installments," "no less often than monthly." Therefore, the court concluded that an employer's failure to satisfy this requirement constitutes a failure to comply with the Immigration and Nationality Act's overall "required wage obligation"—a conclusion that supports DOL's award of back wages to Employee Gangjee.The court declined to adopt the proposed limitations on DOL's investigatory authority by holding that DOL's investigation into an H-1B Program complaint may not exceed the specific allegations of misconduct made in that complaint. Rather, the court affirmed DOL's authority to investigate Aleutian's compliance with the H-1B Program's wage requirement as to Employee Horn, as well as to Gangjee. The court stated that such an inquiry was reasonably within the scope of DOL's investigative authority into the allegations made in Gangjee's complaint and is lawfully contemplated by Program regulations. View "Aleutian Capital Partners v. Pizzella" on Justia Law