Welcome to the Blog’s periodic roundup of summary orders of interest.

In United States v. Rodriguez, No. 06-1681 (November 29, 2007), the court vacated a restitution order for further factfinding in a case involving the filing of fraudulent tax returns.

In United States v. Perez, No. 06-1040 (2d Cir. November 27, 2007), the court, yet again, bounced an Anders brief. Here it ordered counsel to file a supplemental brief that either (1) addressed the court’s Guidelines findings and calculations and the reasonableness of the sentence, or (2) explained why a discussion of reasonableness was unnecessary. If the brief really lacked all of these things, one wonders what it actually said!…

United States v. Ganim, No. 03-1448-cr (2d Cir. December 4, 2007) (Jacobs, Sotomayor, Wesley, CJJ)

Until his downfall, Joe Ganim was the mayor of Bridgeport, Connecticut. In 2003, he was convicted of racketeering, bribery and other offenses arising out of a bribery and kickback scheme. In essence, he had a fee-splitting arrangement with public relations and engineering firms to which he would steer city business in exchange for “cash, meals, fitness equipment, designer clothing, wine, [and] jewelry.” At trial, he acknowledged receiving these “gifts,” but asserted that they represented tokens of friendship and legitimate lobbying activity. The jury felt otherwise, however, and Ganim ultimately received a 108-month sentence.

On appeal, he took issue with the district court’s jury instructions with respect to the various bribery-related crimes of which he was convicted: bribery, bribe receiving, extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, and “honest services” mail fraud. His claim was that …

United States v. Richter, No. 06-1930-cr (2d Cir. December 4, 2007) (per curiam)

Richter was sentenced in 1992 and did not appeal. In 2006, he petitioned pro se for a writ of audita querela to make a collateral Booker challenge to his sentence. The court rejected the claim, because Booker does not apply retroactively on collateral review.

This opinion is interesting, however, because the court identifies a situation when this obscure writ would lie. Most past cases have noted only the writ is “probably available,” or “might be deemed available,” or “might be available” in certain circumstances. Here, the court makes clear, without apparent qualification, that the writ would lie “if the absence of any avenue of collateral attack would raise serious constitutional questions about the laws limiting those avenues.” Now we know.…

The Summary Summary is our periodic round-up of summary orders of interest. So, here we go:

United States v. Zavala, No. 05-7001-cr (2d Cir. November 1, 2007). Here, the district court applied cumulative aggravating role enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, giving both the 4-point enhancement under subsection (a) and the 2-point bump under subsection (c). The government conceded that this was error, and also agreed that the court failed to make adequate factual findings.

United States v. Duran-Colon, No. 06-0974-cr (2d Cir. October 31, 2007), has an interesting discussion of the use of uncharged Rule 404(b) conduct introduced into evidence to show how the relationship between two co-conspirators developed. It noted that, at a jury trial, if “the uncharged conduct is highly similar to the charged offense, such evidence may be unduly prejudicial insofar as it suggests to the jury the defendant’s propensity to commit the offense.” This case, however, …