Archive | Uncategorized

Monday, January 27th, 2014

Defendant’s Sentence Properly Enhanced for Inflicting “Life-Threatening Bodily Injury”

Jordan v. United States Parole Commission, No. 12-5021-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 21, 2014) (Winter, Calabresi, and Raggi) (summary order), available here

Jordan, a treaty transfer prisoner under 18 U.S.C. § 4106A, was convicted by a Hungarian court of the rape of a woman and the attempted murder of another woman. The Hungarian tribunal sentenced him to a 14-year prison term with the possibility of conditional release after ten and one-half years. On this appeal, Jordan challenged an order of the United States Parole Commission, entered pursuant to the applicable treaty, that required him to serve 12 years in prison before release on his Hungarian convictions. This summary order affirms the sentence as procedurally and substantively reasonable. [Disclosure: the Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., represents Mr. Jordan.] 

Jordan’s principal argument on appeal was that the Parole Commission erred by calculating his Guidelines range to include a four-level enhancement for inflicting “permanent or life-threatening bodily injury” on …

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Four-Year Term of Supervised Release Was Reasonable

United States v. Paquin, No. 13-253-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2014) (Kearse, Raggi, and Korman) (summary order), available here

This summary was prepared by noted criminal defense attorney Francisco Celedonio, Esq., who is also a member of the Board of Directors of Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.:

After Paquin violated the terms of supervised release, he was sentenced to six months of imprisonment and an additional 48 months of supervised release. On appeal, he argued that the 48-month term of supervised release was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. This summary order rejects the defendant’s arguments.

 
Reviewing for “plain error” only (since Paquin failed to object in the district
court), the Circuit held that the district court’s statements at sentencing were
sufficient to establish that the court had “considered the parties’
arguments” and had a “reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decision-making
authority.” As to substantive reasonableness, the Circuit upheld the 48-month term of post-release supervision “in
Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Nine-Year Sentence for Sri Lankan Terrorist Was Not Unreasonably Lenient

United States v. Thavaraja, No. 12-4330-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2014) (Walker, Livingston, and Chin), available here

This summary was prepared by noted criminal defense attorney Francisco Celedonio, Esq., who is also a member of the Board of Directors of Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.:

The government appealed a prison sentence of 108 months, arguing that it was substantively unreasonable, and that the district court (Judge Dearie)
abused its discretion in imposing a sentence substantially below the applicable
Guidelines range. The Circuit disagreed and affirmed the sentence in this published decision. 
 

Pratheepan Thavaraja, a native of Sri Lanka, pled guilty to conspiracy to
provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization and conspiracy to
bribe public officials. Defendant was the principal procurement officer for the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“LTTE”), a militant separatist group in
northern Sri Lanka engaged in a civil war against the Sri Lankan government.
The State Department …

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014

Bank Fraud Conviction Affirmed

United States v. Hoke, No. 13-615-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 14, 2014) (Jacobs, Lohier, and Droney) (summary order), available here

Hoke deposited into her own bank account a Social Security check made out to a third party. For that conduct, a jury convicted her of bank fraud and of passing a forged Treasury check. This summary order affirms her convictions.

The Court first held that the evidence was sufficient to establish Hoke’s intent to defraud under both counts. The beneficiary of the check testified that she never received the check or endorsed it. Though handwriting analysis concluded that the false signature and endorsement to Hoke was not done in Hoke’s hand, the evidence allowed a rational jury to find that Hoke knew that the check was forged. In particular, Hoke gave conflicting accounts of how she came to deposit the check, and she appeared nervous when depositing it.

The Court next held, applying plain error …

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Tuesday, January 21st, 2014

Ten-Year Prison Sentence Was a “Variance,” Not a “Departure” Requiring Notice

United States v. Moore, Nos. 12-1644-cr(L), 12-1654-cr(CON) (2d Cir. Jan. 17, 2014) (Jacobs, Lohier, and Droney) (summary order), available here

Moore appealed his 120-month prison sentence for Hobbs Act robbery and related crimes. He argued that the district court committed plain error by upwardly departing from the Guidelines range without proper notice, in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h). He also challenged the sentence as substantively unreasonable.
The Circuit was not persuaded. First, the Court held that, though the district court alluded to a “departure” twice and never mentioned a “variance,” the sentencing transcript made clear that the district court was imposing a non-Guidelines “variance,” which required no advance notice. Indeed, the district court stated after sentencing that its references to a “departure” were mistaken, and that only a variance was intended.
Second, the 120-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The defendant’s history reflected multiple instances of gun
Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Court Affirms 30-Month Sentence for Identification Fraud

United States v. Hatala, No. 13-613-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 15, 2014) (Calabresi, Raggi, and Droney) (summary order), available here

Convicted of fraud in connection with identification information, see 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7), Hatala was sentenced to 30 months in prison. This summary order affirms the sentence as procedurally and substantively reasonable.
First, the district court properly applied a two-level enhancement for using “sophisticated means” to commit the fraud. The court found that Hatala used a sophisticated program and hacking technique to commit his crime, stole hundreds of thousands of usernames and password combinations, and deployed his extensive knowledge of computer programming and database systems to bypass professionally-designed security systems. Accordingly, the “sophisticated means” enhancement was proper. 
Second, the district court did not improperly “double count” by applying both the “sophisticated means” enhancement and other enhancements for loss and use of an access device. “Although loss amount and the use
Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading

District Court Properly Refused to Suppress Evidence

United States v. Clark, No. 12-1221-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 17, 2014) (Newman, Winter, and Droney) (summary order), available here

This summary order holds that the district court properly refused to suppress evidence found following a 911 call. (As discussed below, the Court issued a separate, published decision in this same case reversing one of Clark’s convictions for insufficiency of the evidence.)
A 911 operator received a call from a woman in a bar saying that Chris and Jason Richardson were outside in a white Jeep Cherokee with guns and were going to attack somebody. The caller gave her first name only and did not want any responding officers to interview her. The 911 operator relayed the information to the police, who recognized the Richardsons as having been involved in prior violent crimes.
When the police arrive at the scene, they blocked the Jeep Cherokee with their patrol cars and
Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Evidence Insufficient To Prove Possession of Cocaine

United States v. Clark, No. 12-1221-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 17, 2014) (Newman, Winter, and Droney), available here 

This published decision holds that the trial evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for possession of cocaine. Judge Droney dissents.
In response to a 911 call reporting that some men had just left a bar in Lockport, New York, in a white Jeep Cherokee after trying to “jump somebody,” the police found Clark and three others sitting in the Cherokee. They discovered a firearm in the vehicle and arrested Clark. The police placed Clark, alone, in the rear compartment of a police cruiser; he was handcuffed securely behind his back. Though Clark was patted down, no drugs or drug paraphernalia were found. But after Clark was brought to the police station, the police found crack cocaine in the police car between the back of the back-seat cushion and the
Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Monday, January 20th, 2014

Seven-Year Resentencing Delay Did Not Violate Due Process

United States v. Kurti, No. 12-3503-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 16, 2014) (Winter, Straub, and Hall) (summary order), available here

This summary was provided by noted criminal defense attorney Francisco Celedonio, who also serves on the Board of Directors of Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.:
This summary order affirms a sentence imposed upon resentencing, after a seven-year delay from the original remand from the Circuit. Kurti argued that the delay violated due process, and also challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The Circuit held that the delay alone (some of which was occasioned by Kurti) was insufficient to warrant relief, and that Kurti had to demonstrate “some substantial and demonstrable prejudice” from the delay. Because Kurti faced a substantial sentence (the Guidelines range was 360 months-to-life), he could not succeed on either the due process claim or the claim of substantive unreasonableness.
Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading

District Court Was Not Required to Grant “Fast-Track” Departure Motion

United States v. Shand, No. 13-227-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 13, 2014) (Pooler, Parker, and Wesley), available here

This summary has been provided by noted criminal defense attorney Francisco Celedonio, who also serves on the Board of Directors of Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.:

In this illegal reentry case under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), the Circuit affirmed a 77-month sentence imposed following the district court’s (Judge Irizarry’s) denial of a “fast-track” downward departure motion pursuant to U.S.S.G.§ 5K3.1.
Shand was arrested in 2011 after he produced false identification at a traffic stop. ICE determined that he had been previously deported and had reentered without authorization. Shand was thus indicted for being “found in the United States,” in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Shand signed a plea agreement under the EDNY’s “fast-track” program, which yielded an estimate offense level 16 in CHC III, including a  four-level reduction
Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading