Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants Campo and Flores appealed their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to import five or more kilograms of cocaine into the United States. According to Campo, who from an early age was raised by Cilia Flores, the First Lady of Venezuela, and sometimes referred to her as his mother, defendants sought to raise $20 million in drug proceeds in order to fund Cilia Flores's 2015 campaign for a position in the Venezuelan National Assembly.The Second Circuit rejected defendants' claims of evidentiary errors; held that the evidence at trial was ample to permit the jury to find that defendants, if they lacked actual knowledge, deliberately avoided learning--or forming a belief--that their cocaine was to be bound for the United States; defendants' challenges to the instruction on conscious avoidance were without merit; and defendants' challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence of predisposition was without merit where, upon mention that the drugs would be sold in the United States, there was no semblance of any reluctance or hesitation by these defendants, who had spent the previous two months attempting to get partners for their plans to fly cocaine to other countries. Finally, the court rejected challenges to the district court's application of a two-step adjustment for defendants' roles in the conspiracy as supervisors or leaders of criminal activity under USSG 3B1.1(c), and a two-step enhancement for use of a private aircraft for importation under USSG 2D1.1(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Flores" on Justia Law

There is no error in applying the career offender enhancement under USSG 4B1.1, to a defendant convicted of racketeering conspiracy based on underlying predicate acts of racketeering that qualify as crimes of violence under USSG 4B1.2.The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and held that, even assuming defendant preserved his argument that the 2016 Guidelines should have been used, the district court did not err in concluding that defendant's conviction for federal racketeering conspiracy based on the predicate acts of racketeering is a crime of violence under section 4B1.1 of the 2016 Guidelines. Furthermore, the court held that defendant's prior New York state robbery convictions are clearly crimes of violence under the 2015 Guidelines. The court disposed of the consolidated appeals of defendant's co-defendants in a separate summary order. View "United States v. Canteen" on Justia Law

Defendant filed a notice of appeal more than three years after he was sentenced for two counts of assault on a law enforcement officer. The Second Circuit held that United States v. Fuller, 332 F.3d 60, 65 (2d Cir. 2003), was inapplicable in this case, because it was unclear whether defendant could have filed a timely petition for habeas relief in the district court at the time he filed his untimely notice of appeal with this court. Therefore, the court dismissed defendant's appeal as untimely, and remanded to the district court with instructions to convert his notice of appeal into a petition for habeas relief, assessing whether such petition would be timely under 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(4). View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

The collection of the communications of United States persons incidental to the lawful surveillance of non-United States persons located abroad does not violate the Fourth Amendment and, to the extent that the government's inadvertent targeting of a United States person led to collection of defendant's communications, he was not harmed by that collection.The Second Circuit held that there was insufficient information in either the classified or the public record in this case to permit the court to determine whether any such querying was reasonable and therefore permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "United States v. Hasbajrami" on Justia Law

The government petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to preclude defense counsel from arguing nullification and to exclude any evidence of sentencing consequences. In this case, respondent was charged with production of child pornography. The district court granted respondent's request to argue jury nullification, but reserved decision on the admissibility of evidence regarding the sentencing consequences of a conviction.The Second Circuit held that the conditions for mandamus relief were satisfied with respect to the district court's nullification ruling, but not with respect to the admissibility of evidence of sentencing consequences. In this case, the court could not rule out the possibility that the admissibility of sentencing consequences will depend at lest in part on events that will unfold at trial. Therefore, in these circumstances and in light of the second Cheney condition, the court held that the district court's decision to defer ruling on the admissibility of sentencing consequences until after the commencement of trial was not clearly and indisputably outside the range of permissible decisions. Accordingly, the court denied the government's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to preclude the introduction at trial of any evidence related to sentencing consequences, without prejudice to renewal following the district court's ultimate ruling on the motion to preclude. View "United States v. Manzano" on Justia Law

Petitioner's prior Connecticut state convictions for first and second degree robbery categorically qualify as violent felonies under the force clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. In Shabazz v. United States, 912 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2019), the court held that Connecticut's simple robbery statute qualifies as a violent felony under the force clause. The court explained that the statutes under which petitioner was convicted require that he have committed simple robbery. The court found petitioner's remaining arguments were without merit. View "Estremera v. United States" on Justia Law

It is proper only to consider a defendant's financial eligibility for new counsel under the Criminal Justice Act. The Second Circuit granted Defendant Nunez's motion for in forma pauperis (IFP) status and a motion to withdraw as counsel and appointment for new counsel under the CJA. The court held that Nunez has established that he was financial eligible for CJA counsel, and was no threshold showing of the merits of the appeal was required to obtain IFP and CJA counsel in direct criminal appeals. View "United States v. Kosic (Nunez)" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's determination that petitioner was removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court held that petitioner's conviction under New York Penal Law 110.00, 130.45 for attempted oral or anal sexual conduct with a person under the age of fifteen constitutes sexual abuse of a minor, and was therefore an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court explained that petitioner's conviction under the New York statute did not encompass more conduct than the generic definition and could not realistically result in an individual's conviction for conduct made with a less than knowing mens rea. View "Acevedo v. Barr" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, and wire fraud, as well as postjudgment orders. The Second Circuit held that there was sufficient evidence supporting the jury convictions; the district court did not err in giving the jury a "no ultimate harm" instruction; the district court did not plainly err in charging the jury on the elements of bank fraud; the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving a modified Allen charge to the jury; but the district court abused its discretion in ordering a restitution amount of over $18 million to be paid to the USDA because defendants did not proximately cause financial losses equating to that amount. Accordingly, the court reversed the restitution orders, vacated the conviction to the extent that they ordered defendants to pay restitution, and otherwise affirmed. View "United States v. Calderon" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for arson and possession of unregistered Molotov cocktails. The court held that defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court plainly erred in instructing the jury on attempt; even assuming instructional error, defendant failed to show prejudice; defendant's argument that New York's ban on Molotov cocktails made it impossible to comply with the federal law mandating registration was foreclosed by United States v. Shepardson, 167 F.3d 120, 123‐24 (2d Cir. 1999); the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the custodial statements defendant made to law enforcement; and defendant's challenges to the district court's handling of his criminal history at sentencing were rejected. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law