Author Archive | Steve Statsinger

For your reading pleasure, here are more summary orders of interest:

In two related decisions, both captioned United States v. Salvagno, Nos. 06-4201-cr and 06-4202-cr (2d Cir. August 28, 2009), the defendants, who were father and son, complained of a confict of interest between some of their attorneys – they were employed at the same firm – at sentencing. The circuit concluded that the district court’s Curcio hearing, while “not examplary” was adequate because the conflict was waived by each defendant’s non-conflicted attorney, with the defendants present and “evidently in agreement.”

In United States v. Rodriguez-Nieves, No. 08-0783-cr (2d Cir. August 28, 2009), the court agreed that, where the the defendant was convicted of being the principal administrator of a continuing criminal enterprise (“CCE”) under 21 U.S.C. § 848, his convictions of two lesser included offenses – an underlying drug conspiracy count and a conviction for basic administration of the …

United States v. Hassan, No. 05-6949 (2d Cir. August 21, 2009) (Calabresi, Pooler, CJJ)

Hassan was convicted of three conspiracy counts – (1) importation of a controlled substance (2) distribution of a controlled substance, and (3) money laundering – along with forty-one substantive money laundering counts, in connection with his importation of khat into the United States. In September of 2008, the court of appeals reversed his conviction on the substantive money laundering counts due to insufficient evidence, and remanded for a new trial on all of the conspiracy convictions because of an erroneous jury instruction. See “Krazy Khat,” posted September 27, 2008.

Both sides sought rehearing, and this amended opinion, which deals with the claims raised in the rehearing petitions, supersedes the original without changing the outcome. In the court’s own words, here is the difference between the original opinion and the new one:

[T] his amended opinion replaces …

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 …