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

A district court has the power to deny a government motion under USSG 3E1.1(b). The Second Circuit held that the district court committed procedural error in sentencing defendant after she pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute narcotics. In this case, the district court erred as a matter of law in denying the government's motion to accord defendant an additional one-level downward adjustment for timely acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1(b). Therefore, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Vargas" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the Welsh Government's motion to dismiss claims of copyright infringement brought by Pablo Star over two photographs of the Welsh poet Dylan Thomas and his wife, Caitlin Macnamara, on the ground of sovereign immunity. The Welsh Government argued that the commercial-activity exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not apply to its conduct promoting Welsh culture and tourism in New York.The court held, however, that the Welsh Government engaged in commercial activity in publicizing Wales-themed events in New York, and that the Welsh Government's activity had substantial contact with the United States. Therefore, Pablo Star's lawsuit falls within an exception to the immunity recognized in the FSIA. View "Pablo Star Ltd. v. The Welsh Government" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana. The district court sentenced defendant to 10 years in prison under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B), which specified a mandatory minimum of 10 years' imprisonment for defendants with a prior conviction for a felony drug offense.The court held that the district court erred in treating defendant's prior N.Y. Penal Law section 220.31 conviction as a predicate felony drug offense under the categorical approach because section 220.31 criminalized conduct beyond the scope of the federal analog. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The First Amendment protects a prisoner's right to express non-threatening sexual desire in communications with a third party outside the prison. Plaintiff, a prisoner at FCI Ray Brook, filed suit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 2 U.S. 388 (1971), asserting First Amendment retaliation and procedural due process claims against two correctional officers. Plaintiff alleged that after he wrote a letter to his sister from prison stating that he "wanted" a woman -- whom officials understood to refer to a particular correctional officer -- he was retaliated against by being placed in the prison's Special Housing Unit (SHU), and spent 89 days in isolated confinement for an "improper purpose."The Second Circuit held that the officers violated plaintiff's constitutional rights by disciplining him for speech that, in the medium used (correspondence to a third party outside the prison), was not threatening and did not implicate security concerns. However, the court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time plaintiff sent the letter that prison officials could not punish him for his statements in that correspondence. View "Bacon v. Phelps" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's motion for a reduced sentence under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. Defendant was sentenced in August 2009 after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine.The court held that Section 404 eligibility depends on the statutory offense for which a defendant was sentenced, not the particulars of any given defendant’s underlying conduct. In this case, because Section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 modified the statutory penalties for the offense for which defendant was sentenced, the court held that defendant was eligible for Section 404 relief. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The NRDC and the State of Vermont seek review of certain provisions of a rule promulgated by the EPA, pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act, that requires manufacturers to report information about their use of mercury. Specifically, petitioners argue that three exemptions for categories of manufacturers and importers are unlawful.The Second Circuit denied review of the exemption for manufacturers of assembled products with mercury-added components at 40 C.F.R. 713.7(b)(3) and the partial exemption for high-volume manufacturers at 40 C.F.R. 713.9(a). The court held that these exemptions are reasonable in light of Congress's directive to the EPA to avoid requiring duplicative or unnecessary reporting. However, the court granted review of and vacated the exemption for importers of assembled products with mercury-added components at 40 C.F.R. 713.7(b)(2), finding that the EPA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for this exemption. View "Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being in possession of a firearm. The court held that the general unanimity charge delivered by the district court was correct and adequate. Even if there was error, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence that defendant possessed the firearm.The court also held that defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable and there was no error nor abuse of discretion in applying the USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement. Furthermore, defendant's 100-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and imposed a sentence that was well within the district court's discretion. View "United States v. Estevez" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Does Section 18(2)(e) of the New York Public Health Law provide a private right of action for damages when a medical provider violates the provision limiting the reasonable charge for paper copies of medical records to $0.75 per page? View "Ortiz v. Ciox Health LLC" on Justia Law

Respondent challenged the district court's orders denying his motion to quash various grand jury subpoenas and directing him to comply with the subpoenas on pain of coercive monetary sanctions. The subpoenas related to respondent's conduct with respect to the public disclosure of sealed information about an undercover government witness.The Second Circuit held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce a subpoena issued without a sitting grand jury; the district court retained jurisdiction to oversee a subpoena involving the same subject matter that was subsequently issued by a newly impaneled grand jury; and the district court ceased to have jurisdiction to enforce the validly issued subpoena after the issuing grand jury's term expired. Nevertheless, because yet another grand jury has been impaneled and has issued an identical subpoena, the court has jurisdiction to reach the merits of respondent's motion to quash the subpoena and found that the subpoena was neither overbroad nor issued with an improper purpose, and that it did not infringe upon respondent's First or Fifth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "Oberlander v. United States" on Justia Law

Relator appealed the district court's dismissal of his Fifth Amended Complaint, which asserts claims under the False Claims Act and related state laws against certain healthcare providers, physician oncology practices, and group purchasing organizations. Relator alleged that defendants conspired with Amgen, a pharmaceutical company, to purchase Amgen drugs at discounted rates with knowledge that Amgen would fail to report the discounts to government agencies.Although the Second Circuit held that relator's appeal was timely, the court did not reach the merits of his appeal. Rather, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to determine whether the False Claims Act's public disclosure bar applies to relator's claims--a jurisdictional question the district court elided when it dismissed relator's complaint on other grounds. View "United States ex rel. Hanks v. Florida Cancer Specialists" on Justia Law