Opinions - 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
US v. Williams, No. 08-5151
Defendant's firearm possession conviction is vacated where the district court erred by admitting evidence that defendant had been in an apartment from which weapons and drugs were later recovered.
US v. Bell, No. 08-5506
In the government's appeal from the district court's order granting a new trial in an attempted murder prosecution, the order is reversed where the district court erred in ordering a new trial because: 1) the district court's jury instructions on intentional conduct were legally correct and did not constitute plain error warranting a new trial; 2) the district court's use of a general verdict form was not plain error and thus not a basis for ordering a new trial; 3) the district court rested its decision to grant a new trial on clearly erroneous factual findings; and 4) the district court failed to evaluate the entire trial record in ruling on defendant's motion for a new trial.
US v. Shim, No. 08-1834
Defendant's conviction for conspiring to transport women in interstate and foreign commerce for the purpose of prostitution is reversed where the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that defendant had to know that the women were transported in interstate commerce to be guilty of the offense.
Jova v. Smith, No. 08-2816
In an action by prisoners claiming that defendant prison personnel infringed their right to practice their religion under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the restrictions imposed on plaintiffs' practice were justified by powerful security and administrative interests, but reversed in part where defendants did not demonstrate that the religious/meatless alternative menu was the least restrictive means of furthering their compelling administrative interests.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, September 22, 2009
Caiozzo v. Koreman, No. 05-4002
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for deliberate indifference to a prisoner's medical needs, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the standard for analyzing a claim of deliberate indifference to the health or safety of a convicted prison inmate held in state custody as a violation of the right of the inmate to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment is also applicable to claims brought by pretrial state detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and there was no evidence in the record from which a reasonable juror could conclude in the affirmative.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, September 21, 2009
Hernandez v. Coffey, No. 06-4246
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action by a prisoner alleging that he was beaten by defendant corrections officers and denied medical treatment by defendant nurse, dismissal of the action is vacated where the district court erred in converting defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) to a motion for summary judgment and dismissing his case without first explaining the procedural requirements for responding to such a motion and the potential consequences of the motion, and without providing him an opportunity to take discovery and to submit evidence to respond to the motion.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 31, 2009
US v. Plugh, No. 07-2620
District court order granting defendant's motion to suppress statements made by him to FBI agents while in custody is affirmed where: 1) defendant was entitled to the prophylactic bar prohibiting police questioning when he refused to sign the waiver-of-rights form, and the court did not err in finding that the agents violated this prophylactic bar; and 2) the Supreme Court's ruling in Davis, requiring that a suspect clearly and unambiguously invoke his rights in order to regain them after having waived them, does not apply.
US v. Daye, No. 08-1012
Sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm is vacated and remanded where: 1) defendant's prior state conviction for engaging in a sexual act with a minor satisfies the standard articulated in Begay and is therefore a violent felony under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act; and 2) the District Court must consider of remand whether Defendant's escape conviction constitutes a conviction for a violent felony under Chambers, and whether his two prior state convictions stem from conduct committed on different occasions for purposes of the Act.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 06, 2009
Pilgrim v. Luther, No. 07-1950
In a prisoner civil rights action, district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim fails as a matter of law as entreaties to activity such as petitions protesting prison conditions are not entitled to First Amendment protection where other less disruptive means of airing grievances are available; and 2) plaintiff's claims that defendant violated his due process rights are without merit as any error on the part of the corrections officer assigned to assisting plaintiff was harmless in light of defendant's owns failures.
US v. Pearson , No. 07-0142
Sentence for for producing, transporting, receiving, and possessing child pornography is vacated and remanded further sentencing proceedings where a restitution order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 2259 may include an amount for estimated future medical expenses, but the district court did not explain adequately its calculation of the restitution amount in the order. The district court's judgment of conviction is affirmed in all other respects.
US v. Mills , No. 07-0308
Sentence for firearms possession is vacated and remanded for resentencing where defendant's prior conviction for escape based on his failure to abide by the terms of his transitional supervision was not a violent felony within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act, and thus the district court improperly calculated the applicable Guidelines range.
Wilson v. Mazzuca, No. 03-2459
District court judgment denying plaintiff's petition for habeas corpus relief is reversed and remanded where: 1) the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's deferential standard of review for a claim resolved on the merits by a state court is not displaced when a district court conducts additional fact finding in habeas proceedings; and 2) the court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in concluding that that plaintiff received the effective assistance of counsel at his trial, as trial counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable and there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different.
US v. Lucky, No. 08-1939-cr
Defendant's firearm possession conviction is affirmed where, when police stopped Defendant's car, they had reasonable suspicion in light of the fact that the automobile had the same license plate number and description as one used to flee from a shooting two days earlier.
US v. Jass, No. 06-4899-cr
Defendants' child pornography convictions and sentences are affirmed, where: 1) any Sixth Amendment error due to the introduction of Defendant's redacted confession was harmless; and 2) the District Court applied an unwarranted sentencing enhancement for using a computer to solicit sexual activity with a minor, but the District Court stated that it would have imposed the same below-Guidelines sentence in any event.
US v. Timewell, No. 07-4587
Sentence for drug crimes and making false statements to federal agents is vacated and remanded where the district court erred in neglecting to answer the question posed by the Crosby remand of defendant's original sentence of whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence under the post-Booker sentencing regime based on the circumstances at the time of the original sentence, and this error was not harmless.
US v. Tureseo, No. 07-2933
Conviction and sentence for reentering the U.S. after deportation, making a false claim of U.S. citizenship, and aggravated identity theft is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the district court erred when it instructed the jury in defendant's absence, but the error did not cause prejudice and was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; but 2) the court made a constitutional error that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when it omitted an essential element of the offense in its jury instruction on the aggravated identity theft charge.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 2009
US v. Ness, No. 05-440
Conviction for conspiring to commit three money laundering offenses is reversed where: 1) a reasonable jury could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the purpose of defendant's transportation of narcotics proceeds was to conceal the nature, location, or source of the narcotics proceeds; and 2) the government failed to prove that defendant violated 18 U.S.C. sec. 1957(a), as it did not present sufficient evidence that a financial institution was involved.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2009
US v. Vargas, No. 08-1542
District court judgment continuing defendant's supervised release terms is vacated and remanded for resentencing where: 1) neither the double jeopardy clause or 18 U.S.C. sec. 3583(e)(2) prevented the district court from reimposing or extending the term of supervised release; but 2) the court did not consider the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. sec. 3553(a) before imposing the sentence as required.