Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release on his 2010 conviction for conspiring to traffic in cocaine and marijuana and sentence of 24 months in prison. The court concluded that where, as here, post‐supervision charges involve conduct related to the requisite timely charge and the defendant is afforded adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, the district court is empowered to consider the related violations and to base revocation thereon. The court also concluded that defendant's sufficiency challenge fails on the merits. Therefore, the court affirmed the revocation judgment. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

Defendants Hisan Lee, Delroy Lee, Selbourne Waite, and Levar Gayle appealed from convictions on various charges of racketeering, narcotics conspiracy, Hobbs Act conspiracy, and substantive counts of Hobbs Act robbery and associated firearms and murder counts. The evidence at trial showed that Hisan Lee, his brother Delroy Lee, and their cousin Selbourne Waite were all members of a criminal organization centered around DeKalb Avenue in the northern Bronx (the “DeKalb Avenue Crew” or the “Crew”), which engaged in extensive drug dealing, violence, robberies of drug dealers, and murders. The court rejected most of defendants' challenges to their convictions in an accompanying summary order. In this opinion, the court held that, following the Supreme Court's recent decision in Taylor v. United States, the evidence offered at trial to prove the interstate commerce element of the challenged Hobbs Act robbery convictions was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts, because the evidence permitted the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the robberies targeted suspected marijuana dealers for their drugs or the proceeds from the sale of drugs. The court also rejected defendant Gayle's due process and evidentiary challenges to his conviction on charges arising from the robbery and murder of Oneil Johnson. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

Petitioner suffers from a hearing impairment that requires him to use hearing aids, but those aids were broken during petitioner's trial for murder. Although petitioner told his trial counsel that he could not hear during his trial, counsel never requested an accommodation. Petitioner filed a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, contending that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court declined to address the merits, concluding that the claim was procedurally barred because petitioner could have brought it on direct appeal. The court held, however, that this falls within the limited category of exceptional cases where the “exorbitant application of a generally sound rule renders the state ground inadequate to stop consideration of a federal question.” Therefore, the district court was not precluded from reviewing the merits of petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court vacated the judgment and remanded for the district court to consider the claim on the merits. View "Pierotti v. Walsh" on Justia Law

Defendant Eric Stevenson is a former Member of the New York State Assembly representing a district in the Bronx. Stevenson was convicted of conspiracy to commit honest servies wire fraud, conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery and to violate the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. 371, accepting bribes, and extortion under color of official right. On appeal, defendant challenged his 36 month sentence, the district court's order of forfeiture in the amount of $22,000, and the district court's designation of defendant's contributions to the New York State pension fund as a substitute asset for forfeiture. The court concluded that the application of sentencing enhancements under both USSG 2C1.1(a)(1) and 2C1.1(b)(3) did not constitute double counting; the court rejected Stevenson's claim of sentence disparity and concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error in its computation and application of the sentencing guidelines; the court declined to reverse the district court's forfeiture order where the calculation of the amount of forfeiture is not subject to any statutory thresholds that increase penalties and remains within the province of the sentencing court; and Article V, Section 7 of the New York State Constitution is preempted to the extent that it would prevent forfeiture of Stevenson’s contributions to or benefits from a state pension or retirement system up to $22,000, the amount ordered forfeited. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stevenson" on Justia Law

Defendants Russell and Lange were found guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud (Count Two) and substantive securities fraud (Count Three). The jury also found Russell guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with a separate but related scheme (Count One). On appeal, the Government challenges the district court's order vacating Lange's conviction on Count Three. Both defendants challenged their convictions on several grounds. The court affirmed defendants' convictions and concluded, inter alia, that there was sufficient evidence to support the charges. The court reversed the district court's order acquitting Lange on Count Three because the district court erred by concluding that the Government was required to present evidence that Lange aided and abetted the specific acts carried out by other BSMI employees in the district of venue. The court remanded with instructions for the district court to reinstate Lange's conviction on Count Three and to resentence him accordingly. Defendants raised a number of additional arguments which the court considered and rejected. View "United States v. Lange" on Justia Law

Seven years after her term of probation ended, petitioner moved to have her conviction for health care fraud expunged because her conviction prevented her from getting or keeping a job as a home health aide. At issue is whether the district court has ancillary jurisdiction to expunge all records of a valid conviction. The district court relied on States v. Schnitzer and Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of Americas and held that it had ancillary jurisdiction to consider and grant petitioner's motion. However, the court held that Schnitzer only applies to arrest records after an order of dismissal. Therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's motion to expunge records of a valid conviction. The court vacated and remanded with instructions. View "Doe v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability to challenge the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d) motion to set aside the court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion.  In Kellogg v. Strack, the court held that a COA is required to appeal a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment when the underlying order denied 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas relief. The court held that, because the principles animating Kellogg apply with equal force in the Rule 60(d) context, a COA is required to appeal a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(d) motion when the underlying order denied section 2255 relief. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for a COA and dismissed the appeal. View "Torres v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for theft of government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. 641. Defendant principally argues that his conviction of a section 641 felony violated the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because a violation of that section is a felony only if the value of the property stolen exceeded $1,000, and the indictment on which he was tried charged only a misdemeanor because it did not allege the value of the property stolen. The court concluded that the value of the property stolen is an element of the section 641 felony offense and that, in order to charge defendant with the felony, the indictment on which he was tried should have alleged that the value of the property stolen exceeded $1,000. However, in the circumstances of this case, in which, inter alia, the defense was fully aware, well in advance of the trial, of the government's intent to prosecute the offense as a felony, and the evidence that hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of government property had been stolen was overwhelming, the violation of the Grand Jury Clause was harmless. The court found no merit in defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance on board an aircraft registered in the United States and possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance on board an aircraft registered in the United States. The court held that defendant's conduct falls squarely within the ambit of 21 U.S.C. 959 and that the district court's exercise of jurisdiction was consistent with due process. In this case, a sufficient nexus existed between defendant's extraterritorial conduct and the United States, and defendant's ignorance of the aircraft's registration in the United States does not implicate due process. The court concluded that the remainder of defendant's arguments do not warrant significant explanation and are resolved by a separate Summary Order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Epskamp" on Justia Law

Defendants Jiamez-Dolores and Degante-Galeno were convicted of crimes related to their involvement in a prostitution ring, which involved four separate brothels and a delivery service by which women would be driven directly to customers' residences. The court concluded that Degante-Galeno’s 60 month sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. In addition to considering his role in the offense, the district court based the sentence on his complicity in the coercion applied to the victims - some of whom were forced into prostitution, the duration of his participation in the conspiracy, and his failure to acknowledge fully the seriousness of the offense. The court also concluded that Jiamez-Dolores's 60 month sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. In this case, the record reflects the district court’s thorough, individualized consideration of the section 3553(a) factors and its justifications for imposing an upward variance in Jiamez-Dolores’s case. The court considered defendants' remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jiamez-Dolores" on Justia Law