Archive | Uncategorized

This latest per curiam was a summary order that, on the government’s motion, the court published. In it, the court holds that a sentence to a conditional discharge in Connecticut state court is a “criminal justice sentence” for purposes of the criminal history enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d). The court had long ago held that this was true for a New York State conditional discharge. The defense here attempted to distinguish Connecticut from New York by pointing out that in New York a conditional discharge can be revoked, while in Connecticut it can only be modified or enlarged. But, to the circuit, the distinction did not matter. That a Connecticut conditional discharge can be modified is sufficient, because it still means that the sentence has a “supervisory component.”

Well, it’s been a while since the court gave us any interesting summary orders, but here are two that are worth noting.

In United States v. Crawford-Bey, No. 09-3309-cr (2d Cir. December 1, 2010), the defendant challenged on appeal the U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) gun possession enhancement. He had given away four guns, in pairs, to other people – conduct that was vaguely related to his drug dealing. But the district court’s finding was quite sparse; it noted only that Crawford-Bey gave away the guns “while he was certainly dealing the drugs.” While the requirements of the enhancement are “not especially difficult to meet,” the court must “be able to specify the basis for its holding.” Here the circuit found the record too thin, and remanded to the district court for “specific findings” on the enhancement.

In United States v. Gomez, No. 09-4412-cr (2d Cir. November 23, 2010), the district court …

United States v. Douglas, No. 09-4955-cr (2d Cir. November 23, 2010) (Miner, Katzmann, Hall, CJJ) (per curiam)

Defendant Douglas was trolling a fetish Internet chatroom, and struck up an acquaintanceship with a Vermont police officer posing as “Liz,” a thirty-eight-year-old divorced nurse with a thirteen-year-old daughter, “Anna.” Douglas tried to persuade Liz to bring Anna to him in Alabama so that he could “train” her to be a “sex slave.” There was a lot of back-and-forth, which included Douglas’ offering to help pay for the trip and find Liz a job near where he lived.

Douglas was convicted, after a jury trial, of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) by using an interstate facility to entice a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity. On appeal, he argued that the statute did not apply to him because he communicated only with a person he believed to be an adult. The circuit …