Navigation

Federal Defenders of New York Second Circuit Blog


Sunday, June 15th, 2008

Recuse Me

United States v. Hasarafally, No. 06-4239-cr (2d Cir. June 12, 2008) (Cardamone, Sotomayor, Raggi, CJJ)

The defendant moved in the circuit to disqualify the entire justice department from representing the government on this appeal, because the judgment under review was rendered by Judge Mukasey, who is now Attorney General.

The court denied the motion. It began by noting that there was “very little precedent” on the “potential conflict of interest created by the transition from judge to prosecutor.” The court surveyed a few possible areas of conflict, but skipped the most obvious one: A prosecutor will be unlikely to confess error on appeal if he was the trial judge in the case.

In any event, here there is no possibility for conflict because, the government advises, the attorney general has recused himself “from all matters in which he participated as a United States District Judge.” Thus, he will play no …

Posted by
Categories: conflict of interest, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: conflict of interest, Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Role of Certs

This pair of decisions, both arising from 2255 motions, gives helpful guidance on counsel’s obligations to file a petition for a writ of certiorari.

In Pena v. United States, No. 06-0218-pr (2d Cir. June 12, 2008) (Jacobs, Parker, Wesley, CJJ)(per curiam), the court held that a retained attorney was not ineffective for failing to advise his client of the right to seek certiorari. While the Sixth Amendment right to counsel covers a first-tier appeal, there is no constitutional right to counsel beyond that. Seeking certiorari is the first step in the non-Sixth Amendment discretionary appeal, and not the last step in the first-tier appeal. Accordingly, Pena’s counsel was not ineffective in failing to inform him of his right to seek certiorari.

The court noted that the Criminal Justice Act imposes greater obligations on appointed counsel. But since Pena’s counsel was retained, that statute did not apply. That said, the court …

Posted by
Categories: certiorari, Sixth Amendment, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: certiorari, Sixth Amendment, Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Hollywood Accounting

United States v. Leonard, No. 05-5523-cr (2d Cir. June 11, 2008) (Kearse, Calabresi, Katzmann, CJJ)

In this case, the court concludes that interests in film production companies were “investment contracts,” and hence securities, under federal securities law. It also holds, however, that the district court erred in treating the entire cost of the securities as the loss amount under the guidelines.

Facts

The defendants ran sales offices that peddled interests in LLC’s formed to finance the production and distribution of motion pictures. Potential investors were solicited over the phone and, if they expressed an interest, would be sent offering materials, including brochures, operating agreements, and other such documents. Investors could purchase $10,000 “units” by completing and mailing back a subscription agreement.

The defendants’ sales offices would receive a commission of around 45% for each unit sold. This was the fraud – although the offering materials indicated that a commission would …

Posted by
Categories: loss calculation, securities law, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: loss calculation, securities law, Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Saturday, June 14th, 2008

Allocution Lessons

United States v. Gonzalez, No. 07-4824-cr (2d Cir. June 11, 2008) (Newman, Walker, Pooler, CJJ)

In this case, the circuit sets out the procedure that a district court should follow when it realizes that it has sentenced a defendant without first giving him an opportunity to allocute. It also criticizes the imposition of the statutory maximum sentence.

1. Facts

Gonzalez admitted that he violated his supervised release by possessing marijuana. At a sentencing hearing, Judge Conti, visiting from the Northern District of California, heard from the probation officer, who reported that Gonzalez was released from prison in November of 2006. He was sent from there to immigration custody, and released by immigration about two weeks later. Although the officer sent him three notices, Gonzalez never reported to probation. The officer later learned that Gonzalez had been convicted of two petty offenses after his release.

With respect to the failure to …

Posted by
Categories: sentencing allocution, substantive reasonableness, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: sentencing allocution, substantive reasonableness, Uncategorized

Continue Reading

The Loan Arranger

United States v. Confredo, No. 06-3201-cr (2d Cir. June 10, 2008) (Newman, Winter, Parker, CJJ)

This case takes on the difficult question of fixing the loss amount under the sentencing guidelines when the case involves fraudulently obtained that loans have been partially repaid. It also addresses an interesting Apprendi claim.

1. The Loss Amount

Defendant Confredo and his associates coordinated the submission of more than 200 fraudulent loan applications to New York banks. The borrowers were small businesses, which paid Confredo a fee, and knew that the applications were false, in most instances because the businesses were not credit worthy. Most of the applications were cosigned by second parties with good credit, but none were secured by real collateral. In total, more than $24 million was sought, and more than $12 million was actually lent, mostly from Citibank.

At sentencing, the probation department recommended that the full $24 million be …

Posted by
Categories: Apprendi, loss calculation, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Apprendi, loss calculation, Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Breach Blanket Bingo

United States v. Bell, No. 07-0715-cr (2d Cir. June 10, 2008) (Jacobs, Calabresi, Sack, CJJ) (per curiam)

In this case, the circuit had to sift through competing claims as to which party breached the plea agreement.

Defendants Brumer and Klein pled guilty to various offenses relating to healthcare fraud. Their agreements with the government stipulated to a loss amount, and specified that neither party would seek a departure or adjustment other than those contained in the agreement. Based on the proof at a related trial, however, the government offered to amend the agreement and reduce the loss amount. The defendants rejected this offer, and instead sought a Fatico hearing, after which the court held them accountable for a significantly lower loss amount. In exchange, the government sought adjustments for mass marketing and vulnerable victims that were not part of the plea agreement.

So who breached first? The defendants. According to …

Posted by
Categories: breach, right to counsel, Rule 11, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: breach, right to counsel, Rule 11, Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Friday, June 6th, 2008

Nostab

United States v. Todd, No. 05-5525-cr (2d Cir. June 5, 2008) (per curiam)

In this “reverse-Batson” decision, the court upheld the district court’s decision to re-seat a white juror against whom the defendants, all members of minority groups, had exercised a peremptory challenge. The court found no clear error in the district court’s conclusion that the challenge was based on the juror’s race.

Specifically, the circuit agreed that the defendants’ concern that the brother of the juror’s fiancé was a police officer was unjustified because (1) the juror said that this would not affect her and (2) the defense had accepted a Latino juror whose brother was a retired undercover officer. The court also rejected the defendants’ claim that the juror’s residence in Westchester County was a basis for the challenge. That juror lived in Yonkers, which the defense conceded was “more like the Bronx than Westchester” and, in any …

Posted by
Categories: Batson, reverse-Batson, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Batson, reverse-Batson, Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

Summary Summary

This crop of summary orders of interest closes out May 2008.

In United States v. McCargo, No. 07-0626-cr (2d Cir. May 30, 2008), the defendant escaped from a halfway house, then months later was found to be in possession of a firearm. The court held that the gun possession was properly deemed “in connection with” the escape – triggering a four-level enhancement – because escape is a continuing offense and the defendant admitted that he acquired the gun for “protection.”

In United States v. Rosario, No. 06-5655-cr (2d Cir. May 30, 2008), the court extended the Regalado remand procedure for crack cocaine cases to a case where the offense level was based on a combination of crack and heroin.

In United States v. Konstantin, No. 07-0033-cr (2d Cir. May 29, 2008), the court held that (1) the district court did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to his choice of …

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Pimentel Loaf

United States v. Habbas, No. 05-6142-cr (2d Cir. May 30, 2008) (Leval, Sack, CJJ, Garaufis, DJ)

This confusing opinion attempts to sort through the defendant’s claim that the government breached a plea agreement. But because of the imprecise way it is written, it is hard to know what really happened.

Defendant Rahman pled guilty to obstruction of justice in connection with his effort to frame someone named Abdel-Wahed by falsely reporting that Abdel-Wahed had assaulted a third person, who had testified against one of Rahman’s associates. Rahman pled guilty and was sentenced to eight years in prison.

On appeal, he argued that the government violated the plea agreement by advocating for guidelines higher than those contained in the agreement. Specifically, the government agreed with the probation department’s assessment that Rahman merited a four-level role enhancement, even though the agreement did not contain that adjustment. In rejecting this claim, the appellate …

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Wednesday, May 28th, 2008

Summary Summary

The court has only issued 2 published opinions in criminal cases in the past two weeks. But there has been a flurry of noteworthy summary orders. Here is the latest crop:

In United States v. Creary, No. 06-2233-cr (2d Cir. May 27, 2008), a document fraud case, the court vacated the sentence because the district judge did not make sufficient findings that the case involved 100 or more fraudulent documents.

United States v. Berrios, No. 05-6654-cr (2d Cir. May 27, 2008), sorted out a district court proceeding that can only be described as a train wreck. First, the court vacated one defendant’s sentence because the district judge did not give sufficient reasons for the sentence: it did not calculate the guideline range, mention § 3553(a), adopt the presentence report or address the history and character of the defendant. The circuit did not enforce the appellate waiver, because, during the plea, …

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading

Deficiency Expert

United States v. Ellett, No. 07-3682-cr (2d Cir. May 23, 2008) (per curiam)

James Ellett was a tax protester, who stopped paying his federal income tax after reading a book called “Vultures in Eagle’s Clothing,” which purported to describe a lawful way of avoiding taxes. He claimed to have read the book more than 100 times, and spent additional hours studying the subject in a law library. Between 2000 and 2004, Ellett failed to pay more than $64,000 in federal income tax based on his belief that, as a “citizen” of New York State who worked for a private employer, he was not subject to taxation.

At trial, his defense was a lack of willfulness, which the jury rejected. On appeal, he argued that due process required that he be given an opportunity to litigate his position within the tax system before being prosecuted for tax evasion. Under this theory, …

Posted by
Categories: due process, tax evasion, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: due process, tax evasion, Uncategorized

Continue Reading