Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the district court's denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and dismissal of his civil rights complaint. At issue was the interpretation of the three strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The court concluded that neither the dismissal of plaintiff's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition seeking to vacate his conviction in the Jones v. Herbert case nor the dismissal of his appeals related to that petition constituted strikes under the PLRA. Because this holding negated three of plaintiff's five alleged strikes, the district court erred in denying plaintiff IFP status under the three strikes provision. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and ordered the court to permit plaintiff to proceed with his complaint in forma pauperis. View "Jones v. Smith" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, alleging, inter alia, the denial of visitation rights, telephone usage, and access to a law library, and deprivation of proper temperature control, ventilation, and various amenities. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1). The district court dismissed plaintiff's action with prejudice on the basis of his initial pleading, denying him leave to file an amended complaint alleging that he in fact sent his letter to the Warden complaining of prison conditions. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment of the district court to the extent that it dismissed the claims against the Warden in his individual capacity with prejudice and without leave to file an amended complaint, and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Grullon v. City of New Haven" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 144 months' imprisonment after pleading guilty to two counts of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine within 1,000 feet of public housing property. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where it was below the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Ingram" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's judgment of liability after a jury found them liable for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and violation of plaintiff's right to a fair trial. The court concluded that jury instructions adequately reflected the holding in Rehberg v. Paulk and mitigated the prejudicial impact of the opening and closing statements; the district court's instruction referencing the favorable termination of the prosecution without further elaboration was not a basis for reversal or a new trial; and the district court's exclusion of recognition evidence did not merit a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Marshall v. Randall" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a sentence imposed by the district court for retaining classified documents without authorization. The court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. At issue here was whether the case was remanded for a limited or a de novo resentence. The court concluded that the remand was for a limited sentencing and the district court shall resentence defendant by recalculating the Guidelines range without the two-level enhancement for abuse of a position of trust, and without re-litigating issues previous waived or abandoned by the parties, or decided by this or the prior panel. View "United States v. Malki" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiring to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana knowing that it would be unlawfully imported into the United States and conspiring to import 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana. The court held that ongoing, formalized collaboration between an American law enforcement agency and its foreign counterpart did not, by itself, give rise to an "agency" relationship between the two entities sufficient to implicate the Fourth Amendment abroad; the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule did not impose a duty upon American law enforcement officials to review the legality, under foreign law, of applications for surveillance authority considered by foreign courts; defendant was not entitled to discovery of the wiretap application materials, submitted by Jamaican law enforcement to courts in that nation, underlying the electronic surveillance abroad; the district court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of the foreign wiretaps and his motion to compel the documentation underlying the foreign wiretap orders; defendant's amended judgment of conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and the district court properly admitted expert testimony at defendant's trial regarding the values and quantities of marijuana generally used by drug traffickers in the course of distribution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former New York state prisoners who brought separate actions in the district court and whose appeals have been consolidated in this court, appealed from the district court's judgment dismissing their complaints against officials of the New York State DOCS and the Parole Division. The complaints, brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for damages and declaratory relief, alleged that defendants violated plaintiffs' due process rights as announced in Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler and described in Earley v. Murray, by administratively imposing and enforcing conditions of supervision on plaintiffs following their release from prison, despite the absence of any order for such supervision by the courts that sentenced plaintiffs for their crimes. The court concluded that Earley I did not rule that the rights asserted by plaintiffs were clearly established by Wampler with respect to a defense of qualified immunity; but the court concluded that Earley I itself did clearly establish the unconstitutionality of the administrative imposition or enforcement of postrelease conditions that were not judicially imposed. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. View "Vincent v. Yelich; Earley v. Annuci" on Justia Law

Defendants were found guilty of conspiracy to carry out acts of terrorism against JFK International Airport. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's various evidentiary rulings and the substantive reasonableness of their sentence. The court concluded that it saw no basis to fault the district court's empanelment of an anonymous jury in this case; the district court did not err in admitting a terrorism expert's testimony; the district court did not err in admitting certain photographs; the district court's decision not to declassify the remaining classified portions of the October 2006 Meeting Memo report and the identity of its author was not an abuse of discretion; the district court did not err in excluding certain tape recordings; and defendants' sentences were substantively reasonable. The court reviewed the remainder of defendants' arguments and found them to be without merit. The court also disposed of the appeal of a co-defendant and the motions relevant to that appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment and dismissed the co-defendant's appeal. View "United States v. Defreitas" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from two orders by the district court which reduced their terms of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), but declined to depart or vary in any respect from defendants' amended guidelines range. At issue was whether U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) constituted a valid exercise of the Sentencing Commission's authority, and thus bound district courts whenever they reduced a defendant's sentence under section 3582(c)(2); and whether, even if section 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) bound district courts, it nonetheless permitted them to depart from a defendant's amended guideline range under U.S.S.G. 4A1.3. The court held that section 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) prohibited the district court from departing or varying from defendants' amended guidelines ranges, and that the scope of this prohibition included departures under U.S.S.G. 4A1.3. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stith & Brantley" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former CEO of Medisys, was convicted of honest services mail and wire fraud and honest services fraud conspiracy, as well as conspiracy to commit bribery and violate the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. 371. Defendant's convictions stemmed from bribing three legislators in exchange for their commitment to perform official acts "as specific opportunities arose" within the New York State legislature and State agencies. The court rejected defendant's argument that the federal bribery and honest services fraud statutes under which he was convicted were unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct; there was sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the requisite quid pro quo arrangements and to support defendant's convictions beyond a reasonable doubt; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to compel the government to provide defense witness immunity to a partner at MediSys's outside general counsel. View "United States v. Rosen" on Justia Law