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

Plaintiff Bainbridge Fund Ltd. is the beneficial owner of bonds issued by the Republic of Argentina. Argentina defaulted on these bonds back in 2001, but Bainbridge didn’t sue to recover them until 2016. The district court dismissed Bainbridge’s claims as untimely under New York’s six-year statute of limitations for contract actions and the Second Circuit’s nonprecedential decisions. Bainbridge appealed, asking the Second Circuit to reconsider those decisions. Specifically, Bainbridge argues that (1) the twenty-year statute of limitations for recovery on certain bonds under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 34 Section 211(a) applies to its claims against Argentina; and (2) even if the six-year limitations period for contract actions applies, it was tolled under N.Y. Gen. Oblig Law Section 17-101 because Argentina “acknowledged” this debt when it publicly listed the bonds in its quarterly financial statements (the “Quarterly Reports”).   The Second Circuit rejected Plaintiff’s arguments. First, the twenty-year statute of limitations does not apply to claims on Argentine bonds because a foreign sovereign is not a “person” under N.Y. C.P.L.R. Section 211(a). Second, tolling under N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law Section 17-101 is inapplicable because the Quarterly Reports did not “acknowledge” the debt at issue in a way that reflected an intention to pay or seek to influence the bondholders’ behavior. To the contrary, Argentina repeatedly stated that the bonds “may remain in default indefinitely.” Bainbridge’s claims are thus time-barred. View "Bainbridge Fund Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, and of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute, 100 kilograms or more of marijuana following a jury trial.   On appeal, Defendant argued that (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress marijuana that was obtained during a warrantless search of a private single-engine airplane; (2) the government improperly bolstered the testimony of its cooperating witnesses at trial; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.   The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, the judgment of conviction, and the sentence. The court held that the vehicle exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applies to the search of the private aircraft used to transport Defendant’s marijuana and that there was probable cause to search the plane. Further, the court wrote there is no merit to Defendant’s remaining challenges.   The court explained unlike a traffic stop, law enforcement agents may conduct a ramp check absent an antecedent violation or even reasonable suspicion of one. Here, the ramp check by itself was therefore a proper exercise of regulatory authority. Further, the mobility of an airplane in flight is so obvious that it needs no elaboration. And even when a plane is on the ground, it is no less capable of being moved than, say, a non-residential unhitched tractor-trailer. The fact that the search here occurred while the plane was sitting on the tarmac and the pilot was not in the pilot’s seat does not alter the calculus. View "United States v. Capelli" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of (1) conspiracy to commit second-degree murder in aid of racketeering, (2) second-degree murder in aid of racketeering, and (3) using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). Petitioner filed for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, contending that his Section 924(c) conviction and its accompanying sentence were unlawful. The district court denied the petition but granted a certificate of appealability.   On appeal, Petitioner argued that his Section 924(c) conviction was unlawful because (1) it was possibly predicated on conspiracy to commit murder, an offense that no longer qualifies as a crime of violence, and (2) even if it were predicated on substantive murder, that offense also does not qualify as a crime of violence.   The Second Circuit found no merit in Petitioner’s challenges and affirmed. The court held that the error of instructing the jury on the now-invalid predicate was harmless to Petitioner because the jury found facts satisfying the essential elements of guilt on the valid predicate of substantive murder in aid of racketeering which would have sustained a lawful conviction on the firearm offense. Further, the elements of first-degree manslaughter and second-degree murder differ only with respect to the intent element. Here, because the intent element played no part in the Petitioner’s court’s analysis of whether first-degree manslaughter is a violent felony, its reasoning binds the court with respect to whether second-degree murder is a crime of violence. Thus, second-degree murder is categorically a crime of violence under Section 924(c). View "Stone v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are practicing Muslims who believe that they are required under the precepts of their religion to perform five daily congregational prayers with as many other Muslims as are available and wish to participate. Plaintiffs alleged that while they were incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut ("FCI Danbury"), wardens enforced a policy that restricted prayer in groups of more than two to the prison's chapel.   Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant prison officials seeking injunctive relief and damages on the grounds that FCI Danbury's communal prayer policy violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.   The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in large part, but declined to dismiss Plaintiffs' RFRA claims for damages against Defendants in their individual capacities, holding that qualified immunity was not available to the wardens at the motion-to-dismiss stage.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, concluding that the wardens are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings because the pleadings do not establish that their enforcement of the policy against Plaintiffs was in service of a compelling interest, and it was clearly established at the time of the violation that substantially burdening an inmate's religious exercise without justification violates RFRA. The court explained that a reasonable officer should have known, based on clearly established law, that denying a Muslim inmate the ability to engage in group prayer without any justification or compelling interest, as alleged in the SAC, violates RFRA. View "Sabir v. Williams" on Justia Law

Following a disturbance at a hospital, two New York City police officers arrested Plaintiff and transported her to another hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. Plaintiff asserted false arrest claims, alleging that the police officers lacked probable cause to arrest her for a mental health examination. The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that because the police officers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for a misdemeanor trespass, her false arrest claim was precluded. The district court did not reach the issue of the existence of probable cause for a mental health arrest. The district court also held, in the alternative, that the officers were protected by qualified immunity because they had arguable probable cause to make a mental health arrest.   The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that while the district court erred in its probable cause analysis, the officers were protected by qualified immunity. The court explained that even where actual probable cause does not exist, police officers may be entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim if their actions did not violate "clearly established" rights or if "arguable probable cause" existed at the time of the arrest.   Here, the parties disagree as to whether the officers had probable cause to arrest her for an emergency mental health evaluation. The court held that the existence of probable cause to arrest an individual for a criminal violation does not preclude a false arrest claim based on a wrongful arrest for a mental health evaluation. However, nonetheless, the officers here are protected by qualified immunity. View "Guan v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Defendant filed his compassionate release motion after exhausting his administrative remedies. The Government conceded that Defendant’s medical conditions arguably met the threshold requirement of an extraordinary and compelling reason but opposed the motion on the grounds that the Section 3553(a) factors weighed against release. Defendant contended primarily that the district court erred in denying his motion pursuant to Section  3582 by refusing to consider new evidence that he says calls into question the validity of his conviction.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling.  The court concluded that when considering a motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Section 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court does not have the discretion to consider new evidence proffered for the purpose of attacking the validity of the underlying conviction in its balancing of the Section 3553(a) factors. Facts and arguments that purport to undermine the validity of a federal conviction must be brought on direct appeal or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 or Section 2241. The court affirmed the finding that the district court properly refused to consider such evidence here as to the Section 3553(a) factors and otherwise did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for compassionate release. View "United States v. Orena" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, of conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).  The charge was based on his membership in the Syracuse-based 110 Gang and, more specifically, his distribution, in five separate transactions, of a total of 42.2 grams of cocaine base (“crack cocaine”). Defendant apparently received less than $2500 for these sales, which ultimately resulted in a sentence of ninety-two months’ imprisonment—the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines ranges the district judge calculated.   On appeal, Defendant challenged two factors upon which his sentence was based: (1) the district judge’s decision to apply a two-level increase for possession of a dangerous weapon in connection with narcotics distribution, see U.S.S.G. Section 2D1.1(b)(1), and (2) the district judge’s refusal to apply a mitigating role adjustment.   The Second Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence. The court explained that Defendant’s conviction and sentence stem from his role in furthering the 110 Gang’s violent and extensive criminal enterprise. Yet the district judge failed to analyze Defendant’s criminal conduct against the backdrop of the criminal conduct of other 110 Gang members even though such an analysis might well have qualified Defendant for a mitigating role adjustment. View "United States v. Wynn" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). His application was denied when USCIS determined that he was ineligible for naturalization. Petitioner filed an administrative appeal, and in response, the agency sent him a notice to appear at a hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1447(a) After Petitioner failed to appear, the agency affirmed the denial of his application. Petitioner brought an action seeking review alleging, among other things, that the agency failed to follow its own procedures in denying his application. The district court held that, by not attending the hearing, Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 8 U.S.C. Section 1421(c). Because the district court held the exhaustion requirement to be jurisdictional, the district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.   The Second Circuit held that the district court erred when it treated 8 U.S.C. Section 1421(c) as a jurisdictional requirement. However, the court held that Petitioner’s claim may not proceed because the government properly raised Petitioner’s failure to attend the hearing as a failure to exhaust. Thus, Section 1421(c)’s exhaustion requirement must be enforced. Petitioner’s noncompliance with the exhaustion requirement means that he failed to state a claim, and thus the court affirmed the judgment of the district court on that ground. View "Donnelly v. CARRP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked as a flight attendant for Delta Air Lines. She alleged that, while working on an airplane, she heard a passenger refer to her using a racist remark and reported the passenger’s remark to the pilot. The pilot responded by demanding that Plaintiff “step out on the jet bridge with the passenger,” and when she refused the pilot had her removed from the plane. Plaintiff reported the pilot’s conduct to her supervisor, and within two months of these events Plaintiff alleged she was subjected to random drug testing, wrongfully suspended, and ultimately fired. She filed a complaint in state court, alleging retaliation and vicarious liability under the New York City Human Rights Law. (“NYCHRL”) Delta removed the case to federal district court and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion, holding that Leroy failed adequately to allege that Delta had discriminated against her and that she therefore failed to allege retaliation for a protected activity under the NYCHRL.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling dismissing Plaintiff’s claims finding that her complaint did not allege facts adequate to support a good-faith, reasonable belief that Delta engaged in discrimination against her. The court explained that the NYCHRL prohibits retaliation for “opposing [the] employer’s discrimination.” To succeed on a retaliation claim, the plaintiff must at least have a good-faith, reasonable belief that she was opposing an unlawful employment practice. On the facts as alleged, Plaintiff could not have reasonably and in good faith believed that the passenger’s comment or the pilot’s conduct was an unlawful employment practice. View "Leroy v. Delta Air Lines, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s judgment of conviction on charges including racketeering conspiracy, in violation of the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) and conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering and attempted murder in aid of racketeering, in violation of the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act (“VICAR”), 18 U.S.C. Section 1959(a)(5). Defendant argued that his firearms conviction should be vacated because the predicate offenses on which the conviction was based are not “crimes of violence” in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019).   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and concluded that Defendant’s section 924(c) conviction remains valid even after Davis because one of the predicate offenses underlying the conviction – attempted murder in aid of racketeering – is a categorical crime of violence. The court explained that to determine whether Defendant’s section 924(c) charge is properly based on a crime of violence, it must determine whether any one of section 924(c) predicate offenses listed in his indictment – racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, attempted murder in aid of racketeering, and murder-for-hire conspiracy – “categorically involve[s] the use of force.” Further, because second-degree murder under New York law is a crime of violence, there can be no doubt that attempt to commit second-degree murder under New York law is itself categorically a crime of violence. This conviction for attempted murder in aid of racketeering serves as one of the predicate offenses underlying Defendant’s section 924(c) conviction. View "United States v. Pastore" on Justia Law