Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed from the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release and sentence. Defendant argued that the district court committed error in his sentencing by impermissibly basing the length of his sentence on his rehabilitative needs. The court agreed that when sentencing a defendant after revoking a term of supervised release, a district court may not sentence based on the defendant's need for rehabilitation pursuant to Tapia v. United States. The court concluded that the record made clear that the district court did not sentence defendant to further his rehabilitation where the sentencing colloquy demonstrated that the district court's primary considerations in sentencing defendant were promoting respect for the law and protecting the public from further crimes from defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lifshitz" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted in state court of attempted arson in the second degree in violation of New York law, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's finding that he was removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court held that the attempted arson in the second degree was a felony that, by its nature, involved a substantial risk of the intentional use of physical force against the person or property of another. Therefore, attempted arson in the second degree was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b), and an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 101(a)(43)(F), (U). Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the petition for review. View "Santana v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree and subsequently pled guilty to a lesser charge for which the penalty was a one-year sentence - a jail term that he had already served. Plaintiff then brought the instant action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging Brady violations against the officials who conducted his original investigation and prosecution. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that plaintiff's section 1983 claims were barred under Heck v. Humphrey. The court concluded, however, that because plaintiff was no longer in custody, and therefore could no longer bring a federal habeas suit, Heck's narrow exception to section 1983's otherwise broad coverage did not apply. Plaintiff may bring suit under section 1983 regardless of any defenses which might arise based on his subsequent guilty plea to the lesser charge. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's decision granting summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Poventud v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and three counts of travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. Defendant raised several challenges on appeal. The court concluded that the district court properly resentenced defendant after one of the initial five counts was vacated. The court considered defendant's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Weingarten" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiring to violate sex trafficking laws and two substantive sex trafficking counts. Defendant raised several challenges to her conviction. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to find defendant guilty of the offenses for which she was convicted; the court found no error in the district court's evidentiary rulings; and defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court found defendant's remaining arguments to be without merit and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Cho" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to a two-count superseding information charging him with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence as substantively unreasonable. The court held that the above-guidelines sentences must be justified by reference to specific reasons that place the case outside the run of ordinary cases, and that the further the sentence departed from the typical sentence imposed for the conduct of conviction, the greater the justification that was required. The court concluded that the district court gave sufficient reasons to support its unusually long sentence in this case and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a conviction of one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court decided three of four issues in an accompanying summary order. At issue here was defendant's argument that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) was barred by the Second Amendment. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that 18 U.S.C. 924(c) was constitutional as applied and that the Second Amendment did not safeguard the unlawful purpose of possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bryant" on Justia Law

Respondent appealed from the district court's grant of petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted of burglarizing a Brooklyn apartment and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The Appellate Division held that a written statement introduced into evidence at petitioner's trial was inadmissible hearsay but that the error was harmless. Concluding that the trial judge had improperly admitted the hearsay document into evidence, the district court granted petitioner's application for the writ. The court held, however, that the district court erred because the decision of the Appellate Division was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. View "Evans v. Fischer" on Justia Law

Robert G. Smith, an Assistant Federal Defender for the Western District of New York, moved to withdraw from representing defendant in a criminal action pending in the district court. In this interlocutory appeal, Smith challenged the denial of his motion. The court did not reach the merits of Smith's argument based on his professional responsibility as an attorney because the court concluded on other grounds that the denial of the motion exceeded the limits of the district court's discretion. Defendant, having been informed of his right to counsel, stated that he did not wish to have appointed counsel, made no attempt to establish financial eligibility for appointed counsel under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 (CJA), 18 U.S.C. 3006A, and refused to recognize Smith as his attorney. Under these circumstances, Smith's appointment was improper from the outset, and he could not be required to continue serving as defendant's attorney. View "United States v. Barton" on Justia Law

In this criminal fraud case, defendant appealed from the district court's order denying his motion to release $3.7 million in assets that were frozen in a parallel civil enforcement action. Defendant and his wife had purchased a house in her name using funds unrelated to the alleged fraud. Pursuant to the divorce settlement, defendant received title to the house and gave his wife a $12.5 million distribution award, at least $6 million of which was directly traceable to defendant's alleged fraud. The court held that the district court properly applied the tracing analysis from United States v. Banco-Cafetero. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court made two related erroneous evidentiary rulings at the Monsanto hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Walsh" on Justia Law