Navigation

Author Archive | Steve Statsinger

Monday, April 20th, 2009

Kopp Out

United States v. Kopp, No. 07-797-cr (2d Cir. April 6, 2009) (Kearse, Katzmann, CJJ, Chin, DJ) (per curiam)

James Charles Kopp was sentenced to life plus ten after a jury convicted him of killing an abortion provider, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 248, and discharging a firearm in connection with a crime of violence. He raised a host of issues on appeal, all of which were quickly dispatched by the court.

First, he complained that some of his pretrial statements were improperly admitted because they occurred when he was represented by conflicted counsel. But since his motion to suppress the statements was untimely, he was not entitled to relief. Moreover, he testified at trial and admitted the killing, which was in substance the content of the statements he sought to have suppressed.

He also complained that the admission of redacted versions of the statements violated the rule of completeness …

Posted by
Categories: justification, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: justification, Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

Summary Summary

Here’s the latest crop:

In United States v. Ramirez, No. 08-2771 (2d Cir. April 1, 2009), the district court committed a procedural sentencing error in the defendant’s favor by refusing to calculate the applicable Guideline range based on the actual drug quantity and instead deferring to the jury’s finding that less than 500 grams of cocaine was attributable to the defendant. But the circuit found that the error was harmless since there was no doubt that the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent the error.

In United States v. Soto, No. 08-0654-cr (2c Cir. March 25, 2009), two defendants challenged their lengthy sentences on various procedural grounds. The circuit affirmed, but “pause[d] … to note the striking size of the discrepancies between the sentences estimated at the time of the … pleas and those that were imposed.” The court agreed that it was “understandable if they came …

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

Publish and Perish

United States v. Samas, No 05-5213-cr (2d Cir. March 24, 2009) (Jacobs, Wesley, Hall, CJJ) (per curiam)

This case was originally decided by summary order in December of 2009. On the government’s motion, the court withdrew the summary order and issued this published decision in its place.

The decision resolves two recurring claims with respect to mandatory minimum sentences. First, the court has long held that the federal drug statutes’ disparate treatment of cocaine and crack offenses does not violate equal protection. Samas made the same equal protection claim here, arguing that the issue should be reconsidered in light of Kimbrough. The circuit disagreed: “Kimbrough bears upon the discretion of district judge to sentence within the maximum and minimum sentence ‘brackets’ [but] does not disturb our precedents rejecting challenges to the constitutionality of the mandatory sentencing scheme” for drug cases.

Samas also argued that the parsimony clause in § 3553(a) …

Posted by
Categories: equal protection, mandatory minimum, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: equal protection, mandatory minimum, Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Monday, March 23rd, 2009

Summary Summary

So far, there have been three summary orders of note in March. Let’s take a look.

In United States v. Alkhabbaz, No. 07-4679-cr (2d Cir. March 23, 2009), the defendant was convicted of fraud and money laundering offenses. The circuit held that it was error to impose a sentence enhancement for using a minor, since the use of the minor was in connection with the underlying fraud, not the money laundering offense itself. The court also strongly suggested that the government could not seek to correct on remand a sentencing error in the defendant’s favor that it did not appeal in the first instance.

In United States v. Madoff, No. 09-1025-cr (2d Cir. March 20, 2009), the court affirmed the denial of bail pending sentencing. The court agreed that Madoff posed a risk of flight since his age and exposure to a long prison sentence gave him an incentive to …

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Friday, March 20th, 2009

For Your Information

United States v. Morales, No. 07-4202-cr (2d Cir. March 18, 2009) (per curiam)

Morales was charged in a two count drug indictment; one count had a 5-year mandatory minimum, under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), while the other had a 10-year mando under § 841(b)(1)(A). Before trial, the government filed a prior felony information pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1). This had the effect of doubling the mandatory minimum to which Morales was exposed. But the information specifically indicated that Morales would be subject to the “enhanced penalties of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a), 841(b)(1)(B) and 851.” After trial, but before sentencing, when it is otherwise to late to file an information, the government filed an amended information referencing § 841(b)(1)(A).

At sentencing, Morales complained that he went to trial because he believed that the only mandatory minimum he faced was 10 years: the 5 years under § 841(b)(1)(B) …

Posted by
Categories: prior felony, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: prior felony, Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Seizure Disorder

United States v. Simmons, No. 07-5127-cr (2d Cir. March 17, 2009) (Pooler, Sotomayor, Katzmann, CJJ)

This appeal tackles an interesting search and seizure issue, a challenge to the discharge of a juror, and a sentencing issue. Simmons prevailed only on the sentencing claim.

The Anonymous Tip

Police officers received an radio run reporting an anonymous 911 call about an assault, with “a possible gun involved,” in progress. They sped to the address, which was in a neighborhood known for drug and gang activity, and could see no evidence of an assault. Simmons, along with two others, was inside the lobby of the building, and matched the description in the radio run. There was no indication that he was engaged in an assault.

The officers entered the lobby. As Simmons walked toward the front door, one of them ordered him to stop. He did not. The officer ordered him to stop …

Posted by
Categories: juror discharge, reasonable suspicion, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: juror discharge, reasonable suspicion, Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Saturday, March 14th, 2009

Global Warming

United States v. Yauri, No. 08-1105-cr (2d Cir. March 12, 2009)(Sack, Wesley, CJJ, Kahn, DJ) (per curiam)

In Yauri’s money laundering plea agreement, the government agreed to a two-level reduction for a “global disposition” and to a loss amount of “more than $30,000.” His presentence report, however, recommended guidelines calculation based on a loss of more than $154,000 and omitted the global disposition reduction. At sentencing, his counsel, who had not attended the plea hearing, did not object to the omission of the global reduction, and agreed that the loss amount in the presentence report was correct, despite the language in the plea agreement and the fact that Yauri had not allocuted to a specific loss amount.

On appeal, he argued that his counsel was ineffective, and the government agreed, but only with respect to the failure to call the court’s attention to the global disposition reduction. The court agreed, …

Posted by
Categories: ineffective assistance of counsel, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: ineffective assistance of counsel, Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Same Claim, Different Day

United States v. Pitcher, No. 05-3182-pr (2d Cir. March 11, 2009) (Wesley, Hall, CJJ, Oberdorder, DJ) (per curiam)

In 1999, Pitcher went to trial on a heroin distribution charge. He was convicted, sentenced to 121 months’ imprisonment, and appealed. In a 2001 summary order, the court of appeals rejected his claim that his counsel had been ineffective for counseling him to reject the government’s efforts to sign him up as a cooperator, and affirmed. The court held that any deficiency in counsel’s advice was attributable to Pitcher’s own dishonesty in dealing with his attorney.

In 2004, Pitcher filed a § 2255 motion arguing that he would have received a much shorter sentence had his counsel not misinformed him about the risks of going to trial and the benefits of cooperating. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted the motion, vacated the sentence and resentenced Pitcher to time served. The …

Posted by
Categories: 2255, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: 2255, Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Rehearing Loss

United States v. Owen, No. 07-4966-cr (2d Cir. March 9, 2009) (Feinberg, Cabranes, Hall, CJJ)

Defendant Owen has had a Rule 33 motion pending in the district court for quite some time. This is circuit’s third opinion in the case. In the first, Owen I, it held that the district court erred in granting the motion based on newly discovered evidence, but remanded for consideration of an ineffectiveness claim. See “33 Skidoo” posted September 25, 2007. In the second, Owen II, the court held that a “protective” notice of appeal, filed after the remand, was not effective, and agreed to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the district court’s resolution of the Rule 33 motion. See “On Hold,” posted January 19, 2009. Here, the court disposes of the government’s motion for panel rehearing of Owen II, in which the government claimed, for the first time, that the Rule 33 motion …

Posted by
Categories: Rule 33, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Rule 33, Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Coffe, Tea or Jail?

United States v. Delis, No. 08-0641-cr (2d Cir. March 5, 2009) (McLaughlin, Calabresi, Livingston, CJJ)

On a flight from Zurich to JFK, Pierre Delis, upset that the meal service ran out of chicken, got into a scuffle with a flight attendant during which, at a minimum, he pushed her hand away from his face. He was charged with simple assault, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5), and his defense was a lack of intent to injure. After a bench trial, a Magistrate Judge convicted him, holding that intent to injure was not an element of the offense, and finding that Delis had the intent to “engage in an offensive touching.” He appealed first to the district court, which affirmed, and then to the circuit, which affirmed as well.

Section 113(5) criminalizes “simple assault,” a term with common-law origins. At common law, a battery was the “unlawful application of force …

Posted by
Categories: assault, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: assault, Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Off-Whitley

United States v. Williams, No. 07-2436-cr (2d Cir. March 5, 2009) (Pooler, Hall, CJJ, Trager, DJ)

Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) provides for consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for the use or possession of a firearm in connection with a drug offense or crime of violence except “to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by … any other provision of law.” In United States v. Whitley, 529 F.3d 150 (2d Cir.), reh’g denied, 540 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2008), the defendant received a fifteen-year mandatory minimum under the Armed Career Criminal Act, and a five-year consecutive 924(c) sentence. The court held that the “except” clause exempted the defendant from the 924(c) sentence, since he was subject to a greater minimum on the ACCA count. Whitley left open whether the “except” clause applied to non-firearms offenses. Here, a different panel, following Whitley, answered that question with a resounding …

Posted by
Categories: 924(c), Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: 924(c), Uncategorized

Continue Reading