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

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he pleaded guilty to knowingly accessing child pornography. Defendant argued that the warrant that authorized the use of a government search program called the Network Investigative Technique was invalid.The court agreed with the district court that, regardless whether the warrant violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(b) and the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 636, and whether such violations are also violative of the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officers acted in good faith in applying for and carrying out the warrant. View "United States v. Eldred" on Justia Law

After appellant successfully litigated her claim to supplemental social security income, she challenged the district court's denial of her application for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. 406(b).The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of appellant's attorney's fee application as untimely, because she filed well beyond the 14 days prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B). Assuming the court would entertain appellant's argument, it failed on the merits because she provided no factual basis to support a claim that it was reasonable to delay the filing of her section 406(b) application for more than six months after she received notice of the benefits calculation on remand. View "Sinkler v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

The parties dispute the ownership of copyrights in 44 articles written by the film critic Stanley Kauffmann, which first appeared in The New Republic magazine and now have been republished in an anthology. The Estate appealed the district court's dismissal of the complaint against RIT for copyright infringement based on RIT's publication of the anthology. RIT asserted the defense that the Estate did not own the copyrights, arguing that the articles were works for hire and that the magazine was the author of the works with ownership of the copyrights.The Second Circuit held that Kauffmann's articles were not works for hire because the letter agreement (which stated that his articles were works for hire) was signed long after the works were created, and no special circumstances even arguably warrant applying the written agreement. Therefore, Kauffmann was and remains the author of the 44 articles and his Estate, as his successor, was the owner of the copyrights in them. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "The Estate of Stanley Kauffmann v. Rochester Institute of Technology" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendants' sentences of mandatory minimum terms of life imprisonment applicable to convictions for murder in aid of racketeering. Defendants argued that because they were between the ages of 18 and 22 years old when the murders were committed, a mandatory life sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment.The court held that defendants' age-based Eighth Amendment challenges to their sentences failed, because the Supreme Court has chosen to draw the constitutional line at the age of 18 for mandatory minimum life sentences. Furthermore, Defendant Lopez's argument that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because he did not commit the murders directly was foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991). View "United States v. Sierra" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's March 28, 2019 order denying defendant's second bail application and directing that he be detained pending trial. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's May 16, 2019 order, and wrote to explain that decision and to clarify the circumstances under which the Bail Reform Act permits a district court to release a defendant pending trial pursuant to a condition that the defendant pays for private armed security guards.The court expressly held that the Bail Reform Act does not permit a two‐tiered bail system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants are released to self‐funded private jails. To interpret the Bail Reform Act as requiring district courts to permit wealthy defendants to employ privately funded armed guards where an otherwise similarly situated defendant without means would be detained would violate a fundamental principle of fairness. That said, a private-security condition may be appropriate where defendant was deemed to be a flight risk primarily because of his wealth.In the instant appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in finding that no conditions or combination of conditions would reasonably assure his appearance in court. The court held that the district court's finding that defendant posed a risk of flight, as well as the Government's satisfaction of its burden of showing that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure his appearance in court, was not clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Boustani" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, U.S. citizens of Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel, appealed the district court's dismissal of their federal civil antiterrorism and Israeli law claims against Facebook, alleging that Facebook unlawfully assisted Hamas in the attacks. Plaintiff argued that Hamas used Facebook to post content that encouraged terrorist attacks in Israel during the time period of the attacks.The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment as to the federal claims, holding that 42 U.S.C. 230(c)(1) bars civil liability claims that treat a provider or user of an interactive computer service as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. In this case, plaintiffs' claims fell within Facebook's status as the publisher of information within the meaning of the statute, and Facebook did not develop the content of the postings at issue. Therefore, section 230(c)(1) applied to Facebook's alleged conduct in this case. The court also held that applying section 230(c)(1) to plaintiffs' claims would not impair the enforcement of a federal criminal statute; the Anti-Terrorism Act's civil remedies provision, 18 U.S.C. 2333, did not implicitly narrow or repeal section 230(c)(1); and applying section 230(c)(1) to plaintiffs' claims would not be impermissibly extraterritorial. Finally, in regard to the foreign law claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction sua sponte to cure jurisdictional defects and therefore dismissed these claims. View "Force v. Facebook, Inc." on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of producing child pornography, and transporting and distributing child pornography. The court held that defendant's contention that the district court erred in ruling that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) Reports 1558963 and 1560137, generated from the two AOL complaints resulting from the challenged searches, were admissible based on its finding that he had consented to AOL's searching his emails, provides no basis for relief, regardless of whether there was consent, for the searches of those emails played no material role in the proceedings. Accordingly, the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress.The court also held that there was no error in the district court's conclusion that defendant could not establish that counsel's decision to not call a witness constituted deficient performance and, even if there was error, there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant's trial would have been any different. Therefore, defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel failed to satisfy either prong of Strickland v. Washington. View "United States v. DiTomasso" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions of multiple counts arising out of their roles in the operation of an illegal Bitcoin exchange and a scheme to use a federal credit union for illegal purposes.The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant Lebedev of wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud; the court rejected Defendant Gross' evidentiary challenges; there was no constructive amendment of the indictment; Gross' claim that his due process rights were violated based on government intimidation of witnesses was meritless; and there was no cumulative effect of the district court's errors causing Gross to be deprive of a fair trial. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err by applying a four level sentencing enhancement for Gross' role as an organizer or leader in the criminal activity under USSG 3B1.1, for commercial bribery under USSG 2B4.1, and for abuse of a position of trust by use of a special skill under USSG 3B1.3. Finally, the district court's findings as to the restitution order were not clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Lebedev" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a purported class action against Xoom, alleging that the company breached a customer agreement by failing to set their electricity rates according to their actual or estimated supply costs. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and denied plaintiffs' post-judgment request for leave to amend under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b).The Second Circuit held that the district court failed to accept as true plausible allegations in the complaint and the proposed amended complaint (PAC). In this case, plaintiffs have alleged, with the support of the expert calculations included in the complaint and the PAC, that XOOM's rates showed significant upward deviations from the Market Supply Cost and continued to rise even when that cost fell. Therefore, these allegations were sufficient to state a claim for breach of contract. Furthermore, there was no support for the district court's suggestion that plaintiffs fabricated their calculations. Likewise, the district court erred in denying plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, and the district court should have accepted the PAC, notwithstanding its presentation after judgment was entered. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mirkin v. XOOM Energy, LLC" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's order requiring the law firm to remit $59,432 to the trustee of debtor's bankruptcy estate. The amount the law firm was ordered to remit was part of the proceeds of an unauthorized post-petition transfer by the debtor of the estate's property. The court held that the trustee's recovery of a portion of the Thompson Loan from the law firm did not constitute a double recovery in violation of 11 U.S.C. 550(d). View "In re: Alice Phillips Belmonte" on Justia Law