Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Alexander Arguedas pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to charges of racketeering conspiracy, narcotics conspiracy, and using and carrying firearms in furtherance of a narcotics conspiracy. The district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 390 months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release, and a special assessment of $300. The court also imposed mandatory, standard, and special conditions of supervised release. Arguedas appealed, and his appellate counsel moved to be relieved and for the appointment of substitute counsel, submitting a brief in accordance with Anders v. California.The government moved to dismiss the appeal based on an appeal waiver in the plea agreement or, alternatively, for summary affirmance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the Anders brief was incomplete because it did not address Arguedas’s conditions of supervised release, which fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver. The court held that such a deficiency in an Anders brief is not necessarily fatal if it is harmless. The court concluded that there were no non-frivolous issues with respect to the mandatory, standard, and five of the seven special conditions of supervised release, making the deficiency harmless in those respects.However, the court identified potential non-frivolous issues regarding two special conditions concerning financial disclosure and new lines of credit. As a result, the court deferred decision on the motions and ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing to address these conditions. The court directed appellate counsel to determine whether Arguedas wishes to appeal these conditions and to discuss any non-frivolous issues they might raise. The government was also directed to respond to the supplemental briefing. View "United States v. Arguedas" on Justia Law

Isaac Poole, while on supervised release for prior drug offenses, tested positive for cocaine, and probation officers found drugs and drug paraphernalia in his home. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to eight months of imprisonment followed by ninety-six months of supervised release. As a condition of his supervised release, the court required Poole to submit to suspicionless searches by probation officers or law enforcement officers assisting them. Poole appealed this condition, arguing it was unsupported by the record and involved a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York initially handled Poole's case. After his release from prison, Poole began his supervised release in Syracuse, New York. Following a positive drug test and the discovery of drugs and paraphernalia in his home, the court modified his supervised release conditions to include suspicionless searches. Poole admitted to possessing and using illegal drugs, leading to the revocation of his supervised release and the imposition of the new conditions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion in imposing the suspicionless search condition. The court found that Poole's pattern of illegal drug activity, including while on supervised release, justified the condition. The court concluded that the condition served the purposes of deterrence, public protection, and rehabilitation, and enabled probation officers to fulfill their statutory duties. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, upholding the suspicionless search condition as both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Poole" on Justia Law

Kenneth Darrah exchanged messages with an undercover law enforcement officer posing as the mother of a nine-year-old girl. During these exchanges, Darrah sent an audiovisual file of child pornography through the Kik Messenger application, expecting to receive a picture of the child in return. He pled guilty to distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(2)(A) and was sentenced by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York to 106 months in prison and 20 years of supervised release.Darrah appealed, challenging the procedural reasonableness of a five-level increase for distribution of child pornography under U.S.S.G. §2G2.2(b)(3)(B), the substantive reasonableness of his 106-month sentence, and a special condition of supervised release limiting him to one internet-capable device. The district court had calculated a total offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of I, resulting in a Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months. Despite objections, the court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 106 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It found that the district court erred in applying the five-level increase because there was no evidence of an agreement to exchange anything of value, as required under the amended U.S.S.G. §2G2.2(b)(3)(B). However, this error was deemed harmless since the district court indicated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless. The court also found the 106-month sentence substantively reasonable, considering the nature of Darrah's offense and his background.The appellate court vacated the judgment regarding the special condition of supervised release, which limited Darrah to one internet-capable device, as it constituted an impermissible delegation of judicial authority to the Probation Office. The case was remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion. View "U.S. v. Darrah" on Justia Law

Monika Kapoor, an Indian citizen, faces extradition from the United States to India to face criminal charges. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that Kapoor was extraditable under the bilateral extradition treaty between the U.S. and India. The Secretary of State issued a surrender warrant, rejecting Kapoor’s claims that she would likely be tortured if returned to India, which would violate the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Kapoor filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the Secretary’s decision, but the district court denied her petition, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4) from the REAL ID Act of 2005, which divested the court of jurisdiction to hear her claim. Kapoor appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court, stating that the Convention is not a self-executing treaty and that courts can review claims under it only as authorized by Congress. The court referenced the Supreme Court’s test in I.N.S v. St. Cyr, noting that Section 1252(a)(4) clearly states that claims under the Convention can only be raised in petitions for review of immigration removal orders and specifically bars judicial review of such claims in habeas proceedings, except in limited circumstances not applicable here.The Second Circuit held that this interpretation does not violate the Suspension Clause in the extradition context due to the longstanding rule of non-inquiry, which precludes American habeas courts from considering the anticipated treatment of an extraditee in the receiving country. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s decision, denying Kapoor’s petition. View "Kapoor v. DeMarco" on Justia Law

Nasir Cooper was convicted after pleading guilty to one count of possessing ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Cooper was sentenced to 57 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release, and a $100 mandatory special assessment. Cooper appealed, arguing that the district court erred in classifying his prior conviction for second-degree attempted assault under New York Penal Law § 120.05(7) as a crime of violence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that Cooper's prior conviction for second-degree attempted assault was a crime of violence, which resulted in a base offense level of 24 under the Sentencing Guidelines. Cooper objected, arguing that the conviction should not be considered a crime of violence, which would have resulted in a lower base offense level of 20. The district court rejected Cooper's argument and sentenced him based on the higher offense level.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that Cooper had waived any argument that his conviction was not under N.Y.P.L. § 120.05(7) by acknowledging it in his sentencing submissions. The court also held that a conviction for second-degree attempted assault under N.Y.P.L. § 120.05(7) categorically constitutes a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a). The court reasoned that the statute requires the use of physical force capable of causing physical pain or injury, meeting the criteria for a crime of violence under the Guidelines. Consequently, the appellate court found no procedural error in the district court's determination of Cooper's base offense level and affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Cooper" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Kenston Harry was convicted of possessing controlled substances with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute the same. The case centers on the use of a stationary pole camera by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to monitor the exterior of Harry's business, Action Audio, for approximately 50 days without a warrant. The camera captured footage of the business's exterior, parking lot, and occasionally the interior when the garage door was open. Harry was arrested after investigators found narcotics and firearms at Action Audio and his residence.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denied Harry's motion to suppress the pole-camera evidence, which was introduced at trial. The jury convicted Harry, and the district court sentenced him to ten years for the fentanyl- and cocaine-related charges, including conspiracy, and five years for the marijuana charge, to run concurrently. The court also denied Harry's request for safety-valve relief from the mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the use of the stationary pole camera did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search, as Harry did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the publicly visible areas of his business. The court also found that the district court did not err in denying Harry safety-valve relief, as he failed to prove that the firearms found were not connected to his drug-trafficking activities. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Harry" on Justia Law

Lau, a native and citizen of China, was charged with third-degree trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey. While awaiting trial, he left the United States and upon his return, he was paroled for deferred inspection by immigration authorities. Lau was later convicted and sentenced to probation. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against him, asserting he was inadmissible due to his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Lau inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). The IJ concluded that Lau’s conviction constituted a CIMT, did not qualify as a petty offense, and that he was properly classified as an applicant for admission upon his return. The IJ also determined that Lau did not meet the continuous residency requirement for a 212(h) waiver. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing with the findings and dismissing Lau’s appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that DHS improperly classified Lau as an applicant for admission when he returned to the United States while his criminal charge was pending. The court found that a pending charge does not provide clear and convincing evidence of a CIMT necessary for DHS to consider an LPR an applicant for admission. Consequently, the court granted Lau’s petition for review, vacated the final order of removal, and remanded the case to the agency with instructions to terminate removal proceedings against Lau based on his inadmissibility under section 1182(a), without prejudice to any future deportation proceedings. View "Lau v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The case involves Christopher Poller, who was convicted by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and cocaine base, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Poller pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle, which included the drugs and firearms forming the basis of his charges.The District Court denied Poller's motion to suppress, concluding that the officers' use of iPhone cameras to see through the tinted windows of Poller's car did not violate his reasonable expectation of privacy. The court also found that even if the officers' physical touching of the car constituted a trespassory search, suppression was unwarranted because the trespass was not the but-for cause of obtaining the evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Poller's expectation of privacy from all observation of the interior of his car was unreasonable. The use of iPhone cameras to view the car's interior did not transform those visual observations into "searches" under the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, assuming the officers' physical touching of the car constituted a trespassory search, suppression was unwarranted because the trespass was not the but-for cause of obtaining the evidence. Therefore, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Poller" on Justia Law

Edward Mangano, the former County Executive of Nassau County, New York, and his wife, Linda Mangano, were involved in a public corruption case. Edward Mangano was accused of accepting bribes from Harendra Singh, a businessman, in exchange for using his influence to secure loan guarantees from the Town of Oyster Bay for Singh's businesses. Singh provided various gifts and a no-show job for Linda Mangano, paying her approximately $100,000 annually. The Manganos were also accused of conspiring to obstruct a federal grand jury investigation into these bribes by fabricating stories about Linda's employment.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Edward Mangano was convicted of conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery, honest services fraud, and related substantive offenses. Linda Mangano was convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal officials. The district court sentenced Edward Mangano to 12 years in prison and Linda Mangano to 15 months.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court properly instructed the jury on the conspiracies to commit honest services fraud and obstruction of justice, and that the evidence was sufficient to convict the Manganos on those charges. However, the court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to convict Edward Mangano of conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery or the related substantive offense. Consequently, the Second Circuit reversed the district court's judgment in part, affirming the convictions related to honest services fraud and obstruction of justice, but reversing the convictions related to federal programs bribery. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "United States v. Mangano" on Justia Law

Robert Sylvester Kelly, also known as R. Kelly, was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of racketeering and Mann Act violations. The evidence presented at trial showed that Kelly, with the help of his associates, exploited his fame to lure and abuse young girls and women over a period of twenty-five years. Kelly isolated his victims, controlled their lives, and subjected them to verbal, physical, and sexual abuse.The district court sentenced Kelly to 360 months' imprisonment for racketeering and additional concurrent sentences for the Mann Act violations. Kelly was also fined and ordered to pay restitution to two victims. Kelly appealed his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the constitutionality of the state laws underlying his federal convictions, the empaneling of certain jurors, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the district court's evidentiary rulings and restitution orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed Kelly's appeal. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support Kelly's convictions, including the underlying state and federal violations. The court also held that the New York state law was constitutional as applied to Kelly and that Kelly's challenges to the California state law were untimely. The court found no evidence of juror bias or ineffective assistance of counsel during voir dire. The court also upheld the district court's evidentiary rulings and restitution orders, finding no abuse of discretion.The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that Kelly's arguments on appeal were without merit. View "United States v. Kelly" on Justia Law