United States v. Chirino, Docket No. 06-1207-cr (2d Cir. April 12, 2007) (Kearse, McLaughlin, Straub, C.JJ). In a decision that breaks no new ground, the Court upholds the search of a probationer’s bedroom and dresser – where officers found a firearm -that was based on reasonable suspicion that the defendant was in violation of the terms of his probation.

Here, before the search, the officers had information that the defendant, who was on probation for robbery, was in a street gang. Moreover, he had recently been seen in the company of a fourteen-year-old girl who was missing, and who had been held against her will and sexually abused by members of the same gang. When the officers encountered the defendant, he was in bed, nearly naked, with two other underage girls. The Court’s conclusion that these facts constituted reasonable suspicion should shock no one.

The Court also, unsurprisingly, rejected a …

United States v. Kaplan, Docket No. 05-5531-cr (2d Cir. April 11, 2007)(Feinberg, Leval, Cabranes, C.JJ). Here, improper testimony by a co-conspirator about the defendant’s knowledge of the fraud resulted in the reversal of some, but not all, counts of conviction.

Facts: This case involved a complex insurance fraud scheme, with staged automobile accidents and corrupt doctors, all aided by a corrupt lawyer named Galkovich, who actually filed the claims. In 2001, Galkovich was arrested and risked losing his law license, so other conspirators arranged for his firm to be sold to defendant Kaplan. At trial, Galkovich was permitted to testify, over objection, that his initial conversations with Kaplan led him to conclude that Kaplan knew that the insurance claims were fraudulent (e.g., “I think he knew exactly what he was getting into.”).

The district court also permitted Galkovich to testify that both he and others knew about the fraud. The …

We’re back from “spring break,” and are catching up on Second Circuit decisions since our last post.…

We apologize for our recent unannounced hiatus. We expect to resume normal blogging within a week or so. Thank you for your patience.…

United States v. Amerson, Docket No. 05-1423-cr (2d Cir. Mar. 29, 2007) (Calabresi, Katzmann, B.D. Parker, C.JJ.): In this case, the Court upholds, against a Fourth Amendment challenge, the federal program of DNA testing, to which prisoners, those on supervised release, and probationers are subject, as applied to probationers convicted of non-violent crimes. On its face, such a program faces a Fourth Amendment obstacle, since it constitutes a search without any suspicion of wrongdoing, much less probable cause, a search that is ordinarily unreasonable. The Court follows its previous decisions in Roe v. Marcotte, 193 F.3d 72, and Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, in holding that the proper Fourth Amendment test to apply to such a case is the “special needs” test rather than a “reasonableness” test evaluated on the totality of the circumstances. That test, as applied by the Supreme Court, has required …

United States v. Elmore, Docket No. 05-1734-cr(L) (2d Cir. Mar. 29, 2007) (Pooler, Raggi, Sand): This case makes me want to practice in the District of Connecticut. Here, the district court ruled that a Terry stop of the defendant’s vehicle (resulting in the subsequent recovery of a firearm) was not supported by reasonable suspicion because the informant who supplied the tip leading to the stop of the car was (1) “anonymous” and (2) had not given sufficient “predictive information” to justify the stop under cases such as Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). The district court categorized the informant as anonymous even though she called a police detective and gave him (1) her full name (“Dorothy Mazza”) (2) cell phone number, and (3) home phone. Op. 3. But while the detective was able to call the informant back on the cell phone number she provided (thus …

United States v. Green, Docket No. 05-3830-cr (2d. Cir. March 13, 2007) (Kearse, Sotomayor, Parker). Here, the circuit accepted a defendant’s claim that the government might not have properly proven a recidivism enhancement – the six-level bump for having a prior drug trafficking conviction under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) .

In 1996, Michael Green was convicted of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under N.Y. Penal Law §§ 110.00 & 220.16 (McKinney 1987). Section 220.16, the drug statute (§ 110.00 is the attempt statute), has multiple subsections; pertinent here are Subsection 1, which makes it a crime to possess a “narcotic drug with intent to sell it” and Subsection 12, which makes it a crime to possess more than one-half ounce of a narcotic drug. Subsection 1 triggers the enhancement under 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), because it involves the intent to distribute, but Subsection 12 does not. Green had …

United States v. Siindima, Docket No. 06-2245-cr (2d Cir. March 5, 2007)(Sack, Katzmann, Parker). It has long seemed as if reasonableness review in the Second Circuit was a one-way street permantently running in the wrong direction. Bucking the trend, at last, is Sindima. Here, the Court found that a 36-month probation violation sentence was substantively unreasonable, where the guideline sentencing range was 4 to 10 months.

Sindima’s saga began in 2003, when he was sentenced to three years’ probation on what appears to have been a $9,000 mail fraud. Although both the district court and the appellate court referred to this sentence as a “break,” it in fact was a guideline sentence, not a variance, since the guideline sentencing range was 0 to 6 months’ imprisonment.

About two years into his term of probation, Sindima engaged in an elaborate check-kiting scheme, for which he was arrested by local authorities, but …

United States v. Kaba, Docket No. 05-3813-cr (2d Cir. Mar. 8, 2007) (Walker, Sack, Wesley): In this case, the government urged, in support of the proposed sentence, that the defendant came from a tightly-knit West African community, and that a stiff sentence would deter her countrymen here and elsewhere in the world from engaging in drug crimes. The district court essentially adopted this rationale for its sentence. It noted initially, and sensibly, that general deterrence was rarely a big factor in setting a sentence, but went on to adopt the government’s notion that in this case, because of the defendant’s origins, its sentence would serve to deter those of her nationality. The defendant appealed, arguing that it was impermissible to base her sentence on her national origin, and the Circuit agreed.

The Circuit found the case indistinguishable from United States v. Leung, 40 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. …

United States v. Reich, Docket No. 06-1445-cr (2d Cir. Mar. 2, 2007) (Kearse, Sotomayor, Koeltl): This opinion principally holds that 18 U.S.C. § 505, which makes it a crime to “forge[] the signature of any judge … of any court of the United States … or forge[] or counterfeit[] the seal of any such court . . . ” does not require proof of an intent to defraud. This holding aligns the Second Circuit with the Tenth, see United States v. Cowan, 116 F.3d 1360 (10th Cir. 1997), and against the Sixth, see Levinson v. United States, 47 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1931). The Circuit’s lengthy exegesis of why this is so, see Op. 13-18, is interesting for those who care about this issue.

The opinion also unsurprisingly holds, though technically as a matter of first impression in this Circuit, that the particular version of the …

United States v. Stearns, Docket No. 05-2550-cr (2d Cir. Mar. 2, 2007) (Calabresi, Parker, Hall) (per curiam): This short opinion principally confirms, as a general matter, that appellate waivers must be narrowly construed (and in the defendant’s favor) and, more specifically, that a standard appellate waiver (wherein the defendant “waives the right to appeal … any sentence imposed by the Court which is the same as or less than” a specific number of months or years) does not bar an appellate challenge to the district court’s decision to run the federal sentence only partially concurrent to an undischarged state sentence. Op. 4-5. The Circuit had previously held the same in United States v. Williams, 260 F.3d 160, 164-65 (2d Cir. 2001), and United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 44, 48 (2d Cir. 2000).

Moreover, for purposes of determining the scope of the appellate waiver, it did …