Archive | Uncategorized

Tuesday, December 17th, 2013

Internally Inconsistent Testimony by Defendant at Fatico Hearing Supported Adverse Credibility Finding

UNITED STATES V. NUNEZ, ET. AL., NO. 11-5019-cv (2D CIR. DEC. 16, 2013) (LIVINGSTON, LYNCH, AND HOHIER) (SUMMARY ORDER), AVAILABLE HERE

The defendant in this appeal challenged his sentence as procedurally unreasonable.  Specifically, he claimed that the district court erroneously denied him safety valve relief, held him responsible for 5 to 15 kilograms of cocaine, and denied a departure for acceptance of responsibility.  The defendant was convicted after trial of participating in a drug conspiracy.  The district court conducted a Fatico hearing prior to imposing sentence and credited another witness’s testimony over the defendant’s.  The Court held that there was no error in this credibility finding much less clear error, which is the standard of review for findings of fact made after a Fatico hearing.  The defendant’s testimony regarding a minimal number of drug transactions was internally inconsistent the amount of money he admitted having in his home.  The reasons for having this money, too, changed during …

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Friday, December 13th, 2013

Good Faith Exception Applied to Warrantless Use of GPS Tracking Device for Six Months in 2009

UNITED STATES V. AGUIAR, ET. AL., NOS. 11-5262-CR (L), 11-5329-CR (CON), 11-5330-cr (CON) (2D CIR. DEC. 13, 2013) (JACOBS, POOLER, AND HALL), AVAILABLE HERE

The Court in this published opinion denied defendant’s multiple claims of error by the district court arising out of Rule 12 and post-trial motions. The most predominant issue involved the government’s warrantless placement of a GPS device on the defendant’s car from January to July 2009 and whether it violated the Fourth Amendment where officers have reasonable suspicion and probable cause to execute a search.  After a detailed analysis of similar out-of-Circuit cases and identifying relevant Supreme Court precedent in existence at the time of the government’s conduct, the Court ultimately held that the good faith exception to the warrant requirement applied. 

Burlington, Vermont’s Police Department and the DEA investigated a cocaine and heroin distribution conspiracy in mid to late 2008, which included Aguiar (the defendant) as a suspect. …

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Tuesday, December 10th, 2013

Defendant Knowingly and Voluntarily Waived Right to Appeal

United States v. Coston, No. 12-4622-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2013) (Katzmann, Winter, and Calabresi), available here

Nothing new here: This per curiam decision merely holds that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that his appeal waiver is therefore enforceable.
In his plea agreement, the defendant promised not to appeal any prison sentence of 120 months or less, including any related issues with respect to the Sentencing Guidelines or the reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Though the defendant was sentenced to just 27 months of imprisonment, he appealed anyway, contending that the appeal waiver was either void or unenforceable.
The Circuit rejected the defendant’s claims, holding that, in exchange for valid consideration, the defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and competent waiver of his appellate rights. No evidence showed that the sentence was reached in a manner that the plea agreement did not anticipate or
Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Magistrate Judge’s Denial of Post-Trial Motions Not Reviewable on Appeal

UNITED STATES V. LAURIA (PAPPAS), NO. 13-269-cr (2D CIR. DEC. 10, 2013) (LIVINGSTON, CARNEY, AND KOELTL) (SUMMARY ORDER), AVAILABLE HERE

The Court in this summary order rejected for lack of jurisdiction a defendant’s appeal from a magistrate judge’s order denying various post-trial motions.  The Court noted that a magistrate judge’s general authority is derived from 18 U.S.C. § 636, which contemplates authority conferred by, among other things, referral from a district judge under certain provisions at subsection (b).  In this case, it was unclear whether referral occurred pursuant to § 636(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), or (b)(3), though it did not matter.  Each provision required the district court to enter a final order, which never occurred.  Absent such a final order, the magistrate judge’s determinations were not reviewable on appeal.…

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Refusal to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas Directed at Third Parties Is Not Immediately Appealable

United States v. Punn, No. 13-2780-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2013) (Pooler, Lynch, and Droney), available here

Today’s summary comes courtesy of Francisco Celedonio, a noted criminal defense attorney and member of the Federal Defenders’ Board of Directors:

Punn holds that an order denying a motion to quash grand jury subpoenas directed at third parties (on the ground that the subpoenas were issued solely to prepare for trial) is not immediately appealable.
A federal grand jury investigating Punn issued subpoenas seeking the testimony of Punn’s two adult children. The subpoenas were issued while Punn’s criminal case was at the motions stage. Punn moved to quash the subpoenas, arguing that they were issued for an improper purpose (assisting the government in its trial preparation). The district court denied the motion to quash, as well as a motion to reconsider, on the grounds that Punn lacked standing to raise constitutional issues
Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Monday, December 9th, 2013

Conspiracy Charges Barred by Statute of Limitations

United States v. Grimm, et al., Nos. 12-4310-cr; 12-4365-cr; 12-4371-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 9, 2013) (Kearse, Jacobs, and Straub), available here

As we previously reported (at this link), on November 26, 2013, the Court issued a one-page order reversing the conspiracy convictions of Peter Grimm, Dominick Carollo, and Steven Goldberg. The order stated that an opinion would follow in due course. This is the promised opinion, in which the Court ruled, by a two-to-one vote, that the indictment was barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
The three defendants, employees of General Electric Company (“GE”), conspired to fix below-market rates on interest paid by GE to municipalities. The conspiracy depressed the interest rate on the payments made to the municipalities by GE, an unindicted co-conspirator.
The appeal turned on whether the artificially reduced payments by GE to the municipalities constituted “overt acts” in furtherance of the conspiracy. If
Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Tactical Decision Not to Object to Condition of Supervised Release Waives Review of the Condition on Appeal

UNITED STATES V. PINNEY, NO. 12-3954-cr (2D CIR. DEC. 9, 2013) (KEARSE, JACOBS, AND STRAUB) (SUMMARY ORDER), AVAILABLE HERE

The Court in this summary order rejected the defendant’s constitutional challenge to a condition of his supervised release.  The defendant agreed to the condition being added to the terms of his release and waived his rights to a hearing and assistance of counsel prior to imposition.  At a later sentencing hearing for violating that same condition, he never objected to the condition and only asked the district court to be lenient.  The Court characterized the decision not to challenge the condition’s “obvious” constitutional infirmities prior to sentencing as tactical.  As a result, any objections to the condition were waived.…

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Friday, December 6th, 2013

Involuntary Confession Erroneously Admitted at Conspiracy Trial Warrants New Trials for All Three Co-Defendants

UNITED STATES V. TAYLOR, ET. AL., NOS. 11-2201(L), 11-2426(CON), 11-2639(CON) (2D CIR. DEC. 4, 2013) (KEARSE, JACOBS, AND CARNEY), AVAILABLE HERE

This published decision vacated three defendants’ convictions for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery of a Manhattan pharmacy in 2008 and brandishing of a firearm. The Court remanded for new trials after determining that interrogating agents took undue advantage of one defendant’s diminished mental state and overbore his will in obtaining what was held to be an involuntary confession. The Court further held that admitting the tainted confession at trial, even with a limiting instruction, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to all three defendants.

According to the opinion, Vasquez drove Taylor, Rosario and a woman named Luana Miller to rob a pharmacy in Manhattan on Christmas Eve in 2008. With Miller already inside posing as a customer after hours, Rosario entered the pharmacy brandishing a gun …

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Tuesday, December 3rd, 2013

2011 Sentence for 1968 Pan Am Hijacking Was Not Reviewable on Appeal

UNITED STATES V. SOLTREN, NO. 12-4755-cr (2D CIR. DEC. 2, 2013) (KEARSE, JACOBS, AND PARKER) (AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER), AVAILABLE HERE

On appeal a second time from the imposition of sentence, this defendant challenged the district court’s decision to impose fifteen years’ custody with the possibility of parole after five years as procedurally and substantively unreasonable pursuant to Booker.  He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit air piracy and kidnapping based upon his participation in the hijacking of a 1968 Pan American Airways flight from New York to Puerto Rico.  He remained in Cuba until returning to the United States in 2009, at which time he was arrested.  The district court first sentenced him to fifteen years’ custody without the possibility of parole, which was vacated.  The Court held it was error to impose a sentence that excluded the possibility of parole because it was a benefit that was available for crimes committed in 1968.  Unfortunately for the defendant’s …

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Supervised Release Condition Infringing Parental Rights Required Remand

United States v. McGeoch, No. 12-5012-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (Walker, Cabranes, and Parker) (summary order), available here

The defendant was convicted of using a facility of interstate commerce to persuade a 15-year-old and a person he believed to be a 13-year-old to engage in illegal sexual activity. He was sentenced principally to 151 months of imprisonment and twenty years of supervised release. One of the “special conditions” of supervised release prohibited the defendant from having unsupervised contact with persons under the age of 18, including his two minor sons.
On appeal, the defendant first argued that the district court erred by adding five offense levels to his guidelines range under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b), based on “a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” The Circuit disagreed, holding that the defendant engaged in “prohibited sexual conduct” on “at least two separate occasions,” thus establishing the requisite “pattern.” The
Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading

District Court Properly Denied Motion to Suppress

United States v. Cardona, No. 12-4612-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (Kearse, Jacobs, and Parker) (second amended summary order), available here

Convicted after trial of cocaine trafficking, the defendant argued on appeal that the district court should have suppressed various pieces of evidence because his arrest and the ensuing search of his vehicle lacked probable cause. The Circuit disagreed, holding that law enforcement officers properly relied on information provided by another man, Morales-Gomez, who claimed (upon being arrested for drug possession) that he was to deliver 30 kilograms of cocaine to the defendant. Though the officers had not previously worked with Morales-Gomez, they verified many details of his account, including his description of the defendant, the defendant’s nationality, the specifics of the defendant’s criminal record, as well as where he lived and what car he drove. The corroboration of these “innocent” details, the Court wrote, gave sufficient reason to
Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading