Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The denial of a motion to file a habeas petition under a pseudonym is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The Second Circuit affirmed the magistrate judge's denial of defendant's motion to file a habeas petition through the use of a pseudonym. The court joined several of its sister circuits in holding that such denials were appealable under the collateral order doctrine. In this case, the district court's decision conclusively determined the issue of whether defendant could proceed under a pseudonym; the issue was completely separate from the merits of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion; and it will be effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment on his section 2255 motion.On the merits, the court held that the magistrate judge considered the proper legal principles governing the motion, including a presumption in favor of public access to court proceedings and records, and the exceptions to that presumption. The court held that the district court properly held that the magistrate judge's order did not rest on an error of law or a clearly erroneous factual finding; the conclusion was within the range of permissible decisions; the circumstances identified by defendant were insufficient to support an exception; and there was no error, clear or otherwise, in the magistrate judge's decision. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the denial of the motion. View "United States v. Pilcher" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's 70-month sentence for tax offenses. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his post‐trial request for a competency hearing based chiefly on his adherence to the Sovereign Citizen movement. The court held that the record supported the district court's conclusion that defendant's words and actions reflected his anti‐government political views and legal theories rather than an inability to understand the proceedings against him.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to give no weight to the report of defendant's expert, because the report was based on insufficient facts and data, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the expert employed unreliable principles and methods. Finally, even if the court were to conclude that the district court improperly relied on another expert's testimony without explicitly ruling on its admissibility or reliability under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the error would be harmless. View "United States v. DiMartino" on Justia Law

A district court is not required to complete a written statement of reasons form for a sentence upon violation of supervised release because neither the Judicial Conference nor the Sentencing Commission has issued a form for that purpose.The Second Circuit held that defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable where the district court articulated its reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines sentence, focusing on defendant's possession and use of a firearm. The court also held that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court acknowledged the various mitigating factors, and the two-year sentence did not shock the conscience or constitute a manifest injustice. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former Speaker of the New York State Assembly, was convicted of two counts each of honest services mail fraud, honest services wire fraud, and Hobbs Act extortion, and one count of money laundering.The Second Circuit held that extortion under color of right and honest services fraud require that the official reasonably believe, at the time the promise is made, that the payment is made in return for a commitment to perform some official action. However, neither crime requires that the official and payor share a common criminal intent or purpose. The court also held that both offenses require that the official understand—at the time he accepted the payment—the particular question or matter to be influenced.In this case, the district court's instructions failed to convey this limitation on the "as the opportunities arise" theory, and the error was not harmless with respect to defendant's convictions under three counts. Furthermore, the evidence as to the same three counts was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a guilty verdict, and thus the court remanded with directions to dismiss the indictment with prejudice as to them. The court found the error was harmless as to Counts 3s, 4s, and 6s, and affirmed defendant's conviction on those counts. Finally, the court affirmed defendant's conviction under Count 7s for money laundering, because that crime does not require the defendant to be convicted of the underlying criminal offenses, nor does it require the underlying offense to take place within the limitations period. View "United States v. Silver" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's motion to terminate removal proceedings, his applications for a waiver of inadmissibility and readjustment of status, and ordering him removed. The court held that petitioner's conviction for attempted possession of a sexual performance by a child, in violation of New York Penal Law 263.16, is an aggravated felony, and his remaining arguments failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law. View "Quito v. Barr" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 120 months in prison for federal drug offenses and the district court recommended that his federal sentence run concurrently with a yet-to-be-imposed state sentence for a parole violation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erroneously assumed that it lacked the authority to impose a sentence that was concurrent or consecutive with the state sentence.The government consented to a partial remand to the district court because the district court erroneously assumed that it lacked authority to impose rather than merely recommend concurrent or consecutive sentences with respect to the yet‐to‐be‐imposed state sentence. However, the government did not consent to a remand for the district court to reconsider a related Guidelines issue, arguing that defendant waived his right to appeal procedural sentencing errors as part of his plea agreement.The Second Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for the district court to consider both issues because they were closely related and it was within the court's discretion to control the scope of its mandate. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for wire fraud, Title 18 securities fraud, conversion of U.S. property, and conspiracy, arising from the misappropriation of confidential information from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The federal wire fraud, securities fraud, and conversion statutes, are codified at 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1348, and 641, respectively.The court held that confidential government information may constitute "property" for purposes of the wire fraud and Title 18 securities fraud statutes. The court also held that the "personal-benefit" test announced in Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), does not apply to those Title 18 fraud statutes. Finally, the panel found no prejudicial error with respect to the remaining issues presented on appeal. View "United States v. Blaszczak" on Justia Law

Personal jurisdiction exists whenever an individual, charged with a crime over which the Federal court has subject matter jurisdiction, is brought before that court. The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of obstruction of Government administration for making false statements to the IRS. The court held that the district court had personal jurisdiction over defendant where the district court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case: an alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. In this case, the indictment charged defendant and defendant was present before the district court. Therefore, the judgment was valid. View "United States v. McLaughlin" on Justia Law

The Government appealed the substantive reasonableness of defendant's sentence for conspiring to provide material support to ISIS and attempting to murder a federal agent in the name of ISIS.The Second Circuit held that defendant's sentence of 17 years' imprisonment—which constitutes an 80% reduction from his recommended Guidelines range of 85 years—was substantively unreasonable in light of his exceptionally serious conduct involving a domestic terrorist attack against law enforcement in the name of ISIS; where a district court has accepted a defendant's guilty plea and his allocution to the elements of each charged offense, it cannot make findings of fact during sentencing that contradict or otherwise minimize the conduct described at defendant's plea hearing; where a sentencing court opts to compare the relative culpability of co‐defendants, it cannot selectively rely on a factor when it serves a mitigating function in one case, but then subsequently ignore the same factor when it serves an aggravating function in the other case; a defendant's legally‐required compliance with institutional regulations during his term of pre‐trial and pre‐sentencing detention is not a substantially mitigating factor for purposes of sentencing; and, at defendant's resentencing, the district court shall accord substantially greater weight to the specified 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Mumuni" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment sentencing defendant to two months in prison for attempting to export defense articles without a license in violation of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976. The court held that the challenged statute and regulations were constitutionally applied to defendant; defendant lacked Article III standing to bring a facial overbreadth challenge; and defendant's other facial First Amendment challenges were without merit. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law