Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction of one count of racketeering conspiracy as an associate of the Bonanno crime family within the charged enterprise of La Cosa Nostra. The court held that defendant's below‐Guidelines 18‐year sentence for racketeering conspiracy is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable because the district court acted within its discretion in rejecting the government’s non‐binding 10‐year sentencing recommendation, based on the nature of defendant’s crime, which included both foreseeable felony murder and attempted murder, his longstanding participation in the Bonanno crime family, and his ongoing loansharking and firearms trafficking; the district court did not misconstrue commentary to U.S.S.G. 6B1.2(b) in concluding that defendant’s guilty plea and plea agreement did not provide justifiable reasons for imposing a sentence half the effective 20‐year Guidelines range; and an 18‐year prison term falls within the range of reasonable sentencing choices available to the district court in this case. Finally, the court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in ordering restitution with interest for income lost by the victim as a result of the armed robbery offense that ended his life. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Messina" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his 2007 New York state conviction for charges including murder in the second degree. Petitioner failed to file his petition within the one‐year limitations period provided by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1), and the district court denied equitable tolling because petitioner had not acted with reasonable diligence. The court concluded that the district court's analysis of petitioner's degree of diligence was premised on the district court's misapplication of this court's decision in Doe v. Menefee. In this case, there are significant indications that petitioner acted with reasonable diligence and these indications justified a more detailed inquiry and findings by the district court. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Martinez v. Superintendent of Eastern Correctional Facility" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the dismissal of his claims for false arrest and excessive force under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Halfway through deliberations, the jury sent a note asking whether “refusal to acknowledge/respond to police questions [is] considered obstruction of governmental administration.” The district court equivocally answered that “[r]efusal to answer police questions alone, without more, would not constitute obstruction of governmental administration,” but that such a determination would “depend[] on the totality of the circumstances as you find them.” However, New York law unambiguously holds that one cannot obstruct governmental administration merely by refusing to answer police questions or to provide identification, both because such conduct is constitutionally protected, and because obstruction of governmental administration requires as an element a physical or independently unlawful act. The court vacated the verdict and remanded for a new trial because this prejudicial error was indisputably preserved. View "Uzoukwu v. Krawiecki" on Justia Law

Defendants Binday, Kergil, and Resnick, insurance brokers, appealed their convictions stemming from their involvement in an insurance fraud scheme where they induced insurers to issue life insurance policies that defendants sold to third‐party investors, by submitting fraudulent applications indicating that the policies were for the applicants’ personal estate planning. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence that defendants contemplated a cognizable harm under the mail and wire fraud statutes; the indictment was not constructively amended because the allegations in the indictment and the government’s proof at trial substantially correspond; and some aspects of the defendants’ challenge to the jury instruction are waived, while the remainder fail on the merits. The court rejected defendants' remaining challenges to their sentences and to the obstruction of justice convictions. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Binday" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims of false arrest, retaliatory arrest, and use of excessive force. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that the complaint was properly dismissed to the extent that it alleged claims of false arrest and retaliatory arrest, and that the pleaded claim for use of excessive force must be remanded for further proceedings, despite the district court’s justifiable misunderstanding that this claim was either not pleaded or not being pursued. View "Shamir v. City of New York" on Justia Law