Archive | Uncategorized

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 …

United States v. Drachenberg, No. 09-3114-cr (2d Cir. October 2, 2010) (Kearse, Pooler, Hall, CJJ) (per curiam)

The court’s latest per curiam puts to rest several recurring tax-protester argumenst. Representing himself pro se, Drachenberg argued that federal courts had no jurisdiction over him because “New York is not subject to the legislative or territorial jurisdiction of the United States” and thus that as a “native-born” New Yorker he was under no obligation to pay income taxes “unless and until the United States has conquered or subsumed New York.”

The circuit called this argument “as frivolous as it is hackneyed.” Congress had authority to enact the statute of conviction, and the constitution clearly authorizes Congress to collect taxes. “In sum, the United States was not in want of jurisdiction.”

The court also summarily rejected Drachenberg’s arguments that he was not a “person” subject to income tax – he obviously is – …