Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed from the judgment of the district court convicting him of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326, following a conditional plea. While defendant's 1998 immigration proceedings were pending, he was arrested for robbery and detained in New York. Although he notified the INS of his new address, the INS did not properly process the address change and failed to notify defendant of his ongoing immigration proceedings, so that he was ordered removed in absentia. Defendant was removed to Jamaica but he subsequently returned to the United States. He was arrested again and indicted for illegal reentry. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was given no notice of the 1998 removal proceedings. Because the district court properly considered defendant's completed criminal conduct in ruling that the entry of the removal order against defendant in abstentia was not fundamentally unfair because there was no reasonable probability that defendant would have obtained relief had he received notice of the removal proceeding and been present, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Daley" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. At issue was whether the "public safety" exception to the requirement of Miranda warnings applied where police officers had reason to believe that a suspect could have left a gun in a public place, but where interrogation occurred an hour or more after the suspect's arrest. The court held, principally, that police officers had an immediate and objectively reasonable need to protect the public from a realistic threat and the "public safety" exception was applicable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of theft of government property arising from the fraud she carried out to obtain subsidized housing benefits in New York City. The district court ordered her to pay $11,274 in restitution to the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) and to forfeit $11,274 to the United States. The court concluded that because the money defendant was ordered to forfeit was "obtained" by her "indirectly" as a result of her offense, was "traceable to" that offense, and constituted the "net gain" from that offense, the forfeiture order was authorized by the plain language of the relevant forfeiture statue, 18 U.S.C. 981. Although defendant did not challenge the order of restitution, the court also concluded that the imposition of both forfeiture and restitution orders was proper in this case because the orders would be paid to different entities, were authorized by different statutes, and served different purposes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Torres" on Justia Law

The Government appealed from an order of the district court suppressing cocaine and other physical evidence uncovered during a search of defendants' car, as well as post-arrest statements made by defendants. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that defendants' car was illegally stopped, that the consent to search the car was tainted by the illegal stop, and that defendants did not waive their Miranda rights when they made the post-arrest statements. View "United States v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction of two counts of sex trafficking of a minor. At issue was the appropriate construction of 18 U.S.C. 1591(c), an evidentiary provision added by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), Pub. L. No. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044. The court held that this provision, when applicable, imposed strict liability with regard to defendant's awareness of the victim's age, thus relieving the government's usual burden to prove knowledge or reckless disregard of the victim's underage status under section 1591(a). The court rejected defendant's remaining evidentiary and sentencing challenges as lacking merit and therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Four partners and employees of Ernst & Young, one of the largest accounting firms in the world, appealed their convictions in connection with the development and defense of five "tax shelters" that were sold or implemented by the firm between 1999 and 2001. At issue, among other things, was the scope of criminal liability in a conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. 371 and the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the criminal intent of certain defendants. The court held, among other things, that defendants' challenge to the so-called Klein conspiracy theory of criminal liability under section 371 failed under the law of the Circuit, which remained good law absent review or modification by the Supreme Court; with respect to sufficiency challenges, the court reversed some convictions based on insufficient evidence; and venue was proper with respect to Count Six, which charged defendant Vaughn with false statements to the IRS. The court addressed the remaining issues and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. View "United States v. Coplan (Nissenbaum)" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was arrested for third-degree menacing under New York law and brought an action against defendants for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff also sued the City of White Plains under section 1983 for failure to train and supervise the arresting officers. Plaintiff approached a woman in her driveway, questioned her about members of her household, and insisted that her car had hit his. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. The court vacated the judgment of the district court. The order granting summary judgment to all defendants on the theory that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity was reversed; denying partial summary judgment on plaintiff's state law false arrest claims against the arresting officers and the City was reversed; and denying partial summary judgment for plaintiff against the officers under section 1983 was reversed. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants on the Monell claim and the dismissal of all malicious prosecution claims under New York law and section 1983. The court remanded with instructions to grant plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability for his state law false arrest claims against the officers and the City; against the officers under section 1983 for his false arrest claims; and for the dismissal of the affirmative defenses of probable cause. View "Ackerson v. City of White Plains" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from her drug related convictions. Defendant challenged the district court's denial of her pretrial motion to suppress the drugs. The court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that exigent circumstances justified the DEA agents' warrantless entry into defendant's room. Further, the court found no error in the district court's finding that defendant's consent was voluntary. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Moreno" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his convictions for conspiring to, and filing, false claims with the IRS, bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and identity theft. The court held that there was insufficient evidence for defendant's conviction for bank fraud and that his conviction for bank fraud and aggravated identity theft related to bank fraud must be vacated. The court found that defendant's other arguments were without merit but did not address his claim regarding the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. View "United States v. Gyanbaah (Nkansah)" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted on charges stemming from their involvement in a fraudulent mortgage scheme. On appeal, defendants challenged their sentences and restitution orders. The court held that U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(ii), which increased an offense by two levels if it was "committed through mass-marketing," applied only if the audience of the mass-marketing was in some sense victimized by the scheme. Because the record was unclear in this case, the court remanded for the district court to make additional findings. The court found no error, however, in the district court's calculation of loss amount for sentencing. Finally, the court agreed with the parties that the district court's restitution calculation was erroneous. View "United States v. Bills (Lacey)" on Justia Law