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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's determination that an IJ's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. The court concluded that, although the BIA recognized its obligation to apply the “clear error” standard of review to the IJ’s findings of fact, it erred in its application of that standard and provided an insufficient basis for rejecting the IJ’s findings. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review and remanded to the BIA for further consideration. View "Lin v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of two counts of intentional murder while engaged in a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 848(e)(1)(A). On appeal, defendant raised three challenges related to section 848(e)(1)(A)’s drug trafficking element: (1) the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111–220, 124 Stat. 2372, retroactively invalidates a pre‐Act verdict under section 848(e)(1)(A) predicated upon a pre‐Act drug trafficking quantity under section 841(b)(1)(A), where the defendant is sentenced post‐Act; (2) he could not properly be indicted for violating section 848(e)(1)(A) unless he had previously been convicted of the predicate drug trafficking offense; and (3) the predicate drug trafficking offense’s statute of limitations governs a section 848(e)(1)(A) murder prosecution. Defendant also claimed Fourth Amendment violations arising from his arrest. After considering all of defendant's arguments on appeal, the court found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, but remanded for the sole purpose of correcting a clerical error. View "United States v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for drug and firearm-related charges, arguing that the district court erred by excluding from calculation, for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act (STA), 18 U.S.C. 3161, forty days of delay resulting from the government’s filing of two motions to set a trial date. Defendant also argued, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred by excluding periods of delay resulting from the joinder of his case with that of his codefendant. The court held that defendant waived this latter claim by failing to raise it in his motion to dismiss on STA grounds before the district court. The court also concluded that, because defendant failed to establish an STA violation even if the district court erred in excluding the periods of delay resulting from the government’s motions to set a trial date, the court need not decide that question. View "United States v. Love" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing cocaine base with the intent to distribute and for possessing ammunition as a felon. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant and therefore rejected defendant's challenges to his conviction and vacated the district court's judgment insofar as it set aside the jury’s verdict as to a portion of that cocaine. The court also concluded that the district court erred in requiring the government to prove that defendant both used and maintained the premises in order to be convicted of using or maintaining a place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(1). Because the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that defendant used the premises for a drug‐related purpose, the court also vacated the district court’s judgment of acquittal on that charge. View "United States v. Facen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, OAG, alleging discrimination in violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. OAG moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter, arguing that plaintiff was employed at a policymaking level and thus was subject to the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (GERA), 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16a, 2000e-16b, and 2000e-16c. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that GERA was inapplicable in this case. The court concluded that the district court's denial of OAG's motion to dismiss under GERA does not qualify as an immediately appealable order under that doctrine. Therefore, the court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal. View "Fischer v. New York State Dept. of Law" on Justia Law

In 2000, the Secretary of Health and Human Services issued a regulation, known as the “reclassification rule,” 42 C.F.R. 412.230(a)(5)(iii), which provided that a hospital that has been reclassified from urban to rural under the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(8)(E), may not thereafter receive an additional reclassification by the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board (MGCRB) for reclassification as urban under subsection (d)(10). Lawrence filed suit seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from applying the Secretary's reclassification rule to Lawrence's MGCRB application. The district court denied the motion. However, the court found the statutory language to be plain and unambiguous, and at odds with the Secretary’s reclassification rule, 42 C.F.R. 412.230(a)(5)(iii). Therefore, the court declared the regulation invalid and reversed the judgment of the district court, remanding for a determination of the appropriate remedy. View "Lawrence + Memorial Hosp. v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that SK Fund, a sovereign wealth fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan, misrepresented the value of certain notes issued by non‐party BTA, a Kazakhstani corporation majority‐owned by SK Fund, in connection with a 2010 restructuring of BTA Bank’s debt. At issue on appeal, and one of first impression, is whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(2), immunizes an instrumentality of a foreign sovereign against claims that it violated federal securities laws by making misrepresentations outside the United States concerning the value of securities purchased by investors within the United States. The court agreed with the district court that SK Fund is not immune from suit under the FSIA because plaintiffs’ claims are “based upon . . . an act outside the territory of the United States” that “cause[d] a direct effect in the United States.” The court declined to exercise appellate jurisdiction to consider SK Fund’s argument that the district court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over it consistent with due process. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and dismissed in part. View "Atlantica Holdings, Inc. v. Sovereign Wealth Fund" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to engage in a racketeering enterprise in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and (d); using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c); and operating an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1955. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of certain predicate racketeering acts; even assuming there was error, defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court's use of the wrong version of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings; and the district court properly denied defendant's motion for a new trial where the newly discovered evidence at issue was essentially more of the same, and therefore cumulative or impeachment evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Vernace" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 46-month sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court affirmed the sentence but wrote to suggest to the Sentencing Commission and the Judicial Conference of the Uniteds States that the Statement of Reasons form included within the statutorily‐required form for the entry of criminal judgments ‐‐ Form AO 245B ‐‐ be amended to bring it into conformity with 18 U.S.C. 3553(c) and Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, a check‐a‐box section of the form, which was checked by the district court in this case, invites sentencing judges to impose a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range simply because the judge finds no reason to depart. View "United States v. Pruitt" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former inmate of DOCCS, filed suit against New York State officials and employees for violating and conspiring to violate his right to due process in connection with the rescission of his grant of parole. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants and dismissal of his complaint. The court concluded that genuine issues of material fact remain with respect to the personal involvement of certain defendants in rescinding plaintiff's parole. Accordingly, the court vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Victory v. Pataki" on Justia Law