Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's finding that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony and was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court concluded that petitioner's New York state conviction under NYPL 220.39(1) constituted an aggravated felony, which deprived the court of jurisdiction to review the order of removal. The court also denied petitioner's additional motions as moot. View "Pascual v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions stemming from his involvement in a Medicare fraud scheme. At issue was whether health care fraud was an enumerated felony violation cognizable under 18 U.S.C. 1028A. The district court rejected defendant's argument that the parenthetical language limited the applicable provisions of Chapter 63 to those relating only to mail, bank, and wire fraud. The court agreed with the district court and held that the parenthetical language "relating to mail, bank, and wire fraud" in section 1028(c)(5) was merely a shorthand signal to the reader concerning the general nature of offenses contained in Chapter 63. It was not intended to limit the predicate felonies enumerated in Chapter 63. Rather, it encompassed the other frauds criminalized in Chapter 63. The court also held that the instruction given to the jury on the charge of aggravated identity theft was neither misleading nor inadequate. Most of defendant's arguments on appeal have been disposed of in a separate summary order filed simultaneously with this opinion. View "United States v. Rahman" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' commitments were effected by means of an executive-branch effort aimed at preventing the release of some "sexually violent predators." The court agreed with the district court that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support plaintiffs' procedural due process claims and therefore defeated the motion for summary judgment. The court also concluded that at the time of the Initiative, the constitutional principal that, absent some emergency or other exigent circumstance, an individual could not be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution without notice and a predeprivation hearing was firmly established. Because the law pertaining to the involuntary civil commitment of prisoners was firmly established, the district court properly determined that defendants should not enjoy qualified immunity. View "Bailey v. Pataki" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of offenses arising from his malfeasance as an air monitor for asbestos abatement projects. Defendant was sentenced to five years' probation after the district court granted his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 to dismiss the conspiracy charge. On appeal, the court reinstated the conviction for the conspiracy charge and remanded for resentencing. The court concluded that the sentence was procedurally unreasonable and vacated and again remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Desnoyers" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The district court held that petitioner's trial counsel was not constitutionally defective for failing to challenge a second offender notice filed by the government, which caused the five year mandatory minimum sentence for petitioner's convictions to increase to ten years. Given the defense bar's long-held position that Connecticut narcotics convictions categorically qualified under 21 U.S.C. 851, it did not constitute ineffective assistance for trial counsel to fail to challenge the second offender notice. Even if trial counsel's performance was deficient, there was not a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "McCoy v. United States" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from defendant's arrest for bank fraud. The government appealed the district court's denial of its motion in limine to admit a state court temporary restraining order as evidence against defendant. The court held that, because the government was seeking to admit the state court order for a non-hearsay purpose and because the district court's analysis pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403 did not account for the order's probative value if offered to show knowledge, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Dupree" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from convictions for racketeering conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), murder in aid of racketeering, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court considered all of defendant's claims on appeal, and as to those issues for which the record was sufficiently developed, the court found his claims to be without merit. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, without prejudice to defendant's filing a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 to pursue his claim that his attorney did not advise him of his rights to testify. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of bank robbery, using fire to commit a felony, and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. Defendant appealed. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant used fire to commit the bank robbery and the court was satisfied that his conviction did not offend Due Process. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction for attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the government to cross-examine defendant about his plan to obstruct his New Jersey state criminal trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Desposito" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, two officers. The suit sought damages for the seizure of plaintiffs who were ordered to return to their automobile, a disorderly conduct arrest, and an alleged malicious prosecution, all claimed to have been precipitated by plaintiff's "giving the finger" to a police officer. The court held that there was a question of whether a motor vehicle stop occurred; there was a question of whether there was probable cause for the arrest for disorderly conduct; and it was error for the district court to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim based on dictum in Burg v. Gosselin. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment dismissing all three of plaintiffs' claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Swartz, et al v. Insogna, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant moved to dismiss the government's interlocutory appeal from an order of the district court suppressing certain evidence in connection with a criminal trial. The court concluded that the U.S. Attorney's certification that "the evidence is a substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding" was conclusive of that issue for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 3731 and therefore was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction under section 3731 of timely appeals from orders suppressing evidence. Because the requirements of section 3731 were satisfied in this case, the court had jurisdiction over the appeal. View "United States v. Metter" on Justia Law