Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants Albarran and Vasquez pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to distribute heroin, and Albarran also pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.The Second Circuit affirmed Vasquez's 151 month sentence, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by assessing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and acted within its discretion when it sentenced him. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Albarran's motion to withdraw his guilty plea where Albarran has not carried his burden of showing a fair and just reason for withdrawing his guilty plea. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion, because Albarran failed to sufficiently demonstrate his legal innocence or raise a significant question about the voluntariness of his original plea, and the judge reasonably concluded that granting Albarran's belated motion to withdraw would prejudice the government. View "United States v. Albarran" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for engaging in drug trafficking activity, and conspiring to do so, in violation of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. The court held that defendant waived his Confrontation Clause and jury trial right challenges to his conviction by pleading guilty.The court also held that the Due Process Clause did not require a nexus between the United States and the MDLEA violations that transpire on a vessel without nationality. The court explained that such prosecutions are not arbitrary, since any nation may exercise jurisdiction over stateless vessels, and they are not unfair, since persons who traffic drugs may be charged with knowledge that such activity is illegal and may be prosecuted somewhere. The court considered defendant's remaining arguments and found them meritless. View "United States v. Van Der End" on Justia Law

Defendant petitioned for rehearing in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2194 (2019), which held that in prosecutions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2), the government must prove that the defendant not only knowingly possessed a firearm, but also knew that he or she was unlawfully in the United States.The Second Circuit held that the indictment's failure to allege explicitly that defendant knew he was unlawfully in the United States was not a jurisdictional defect. However, the court held that defendant demonstrated all four prongs of the plain error standard in the acceptance of his guilty plea, because the district court failed to advise defendant that the government would need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that he knew that he was illegally present in the United States, or to examine the record to determine whether there was a factual basis for finding such knowledge. View "United States v. Balde" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his challenge to an administrative forfeiture. In this opinion, the Second Circuit addressed and rejected defendant's argument that the Government failed to provide him with adequate notice of the administrative forfeiture action while he was in prison, in violation of his due process rights.The court affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the Government generally must demonstrate the existence of procedures reasonably calculated to ensure that a prisoner receives notice of the forfeiture action. The court agreed with the district court that the Government showed that its notice to the county jail where defendant was detained was reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise defendant of the pendency of the cash forfeiture. View "United States v. Brome" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated defendant's conviction of traveling interstate for the purpose of engaging in illicit conduct with a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b). Defendant had pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement stipulating that when he was 25 years old, he traveled from Rhode Island to Connecticut for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with a young girl he told detectives he believed to be 16 years old when in fact she was younger than 16 but older than 13.The Second Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) is not a strict liability crime. The court held that the statute criminalizes interstate travel "for the purpose of" engaging in a sexual act with someone aged at least 12, not yet, 16, and at least four years the defendant's junior. In this case, defendant believed he was going to have sexual intercourse with a 16 year old and was thus not guilty of violating section 2423(b). The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Murphy" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's finding that petitioner was removable for an aggravated felony. The court held that petitioner's conviction for first‐degree robbery in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 53a‐134(a)(4) is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) and therefore an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1101(43)(F). View "Wood v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions for honest services fraud and honest services fraud conspiracy, conspiracy to violate the Travel Act, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. However, the court held that the district court failed to employ a sound methodology to determine the victim's actual loss for restitution; the district court erred in ordering forfeiture of an amount that exceeded the amount of the criminal proceeds; and, under the circumstances of this case, Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017), did not foreclose ordering defendants jointly and severally to forfeit the proceeds each possessed as a result of their crimes. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Tanner" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by applying a three-level sentencing enhancement for defendant's role in the offense where the evidence supported the district court's findings that he exercised the requisite control and authority over others to qualify as a manager or supervisor, and that the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.The court also did not clearly err by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for committing an offense as part of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood. In this case, considering the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not clearly err by finding that defendant's criminal conduct was his primary occupation and, even if the application of the enhancement was inappropriate, the error was harmless. View "United States v. Moran" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for crimes related to his involvement in a violent gang, drug trafficking operation. The Second Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support each count of conviction, including murder and attempted murder in aid of racketeering under 18 U.S.C. 1959. However, the court held that defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated when the district court failed to ensure that defendant understood the full scope of the consequences arising from counsel's conflict of interest, including the disadvantages of a trial severance that counsel proposed. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Arrington" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order setting aside a jury's verdict finding defendant guilty of narcotics conspiracy. The court held that, although it was unfortunate that the jury was not afforded an opportunity to reconsider its findings, the verdict was inconsistent with the jury's findings and the appropriate remedy for the inconsistency was to set aside the guilty verdict, especially in view of the government's unhelpful role in the proceedings. View "United States v. Pierce" on Justia Law