Author Archive | Steve Statsinger

Here is the latest collection of summary orders of interest:

In United States v. Bender, No. 08-3103-cr (2d Cir. August 14, 2009), the court rejected both substantive and procedural challenges to an upward departure in a child pornography case, even though the district court “should have provided a written statement of the specific reasons for its sentence.”

In United States v. Giordano, No. 07-3487-cr (2d Cir. August 12, 2009), the court affirmed the decision not to resentence the defendant on a Crosby remand, even though the district court had “mischaracterized the record in rejecting” the defendant’s harsh conditions of pretrial confinement – solitary confinement for 23 hours each day – as a “consideration that might justify a decision to resentence.” The court’s “misstatement” did not undermine it’s decision not to resentence, since it also concluded that the original sentence would not have been materially different had it known at the …

United States v. Bah, No. 07-4370-cr (2d Cir. July 31, 2009) (Jacobs, Walker, Calabresi, CJJ)

Boubacar Bah ran a licensed money transmission business in New Jersey, but did not have an equivalent license in New York. He was convicted of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1960, but the circuit reversed, finding that the district court erred in explaining the scope of § 1960 in its jury instructions.

Section 1960 makes it a crime to operate an “unlicensed money transmitting business” in interstate or foreign commerce in a “State where such operation is punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony under State law.” Under New York State law, it is a crime both to receive money for transmission and to transmit it without a license. Only the second of these is covered by § 1960, however, since the federal statute does cover the receipt …

Here are two more summary orders of interest.

In United States v. Nash, No. 08-0136 (2d Cir. July 29, 2009), a fraud prosecution, the court remanded the case for further record development on the question whether the “10 or more victims” enhancement should apply.

United States v. Zavala, No. 08-2727-cr (2d Cir. July 27, 2009), remanded the case for findings on whether an aggravating role enhancement was appropriate. The enhancement was based on the defendants’ supervising their daughter, but she was a minor for part of the time. “Specific findings” are necessary “as to acts constituting her participation in the parents’ offenses after she turned 18,” since a minor child is not a “participant” for the purposes of a role enhancement.

…