United States v. Jose Saldana et al., Docket No. 03-1452 (L) (2d Cir. August 26, 2005) (Straub, Wesley, and Sessions, D.J.) (Op. by Straub): This hard-to-read opinion holds — I think — that a defendant who pleaded guilty before Blakely and was misinformed by the court at his plea that sentence would be imposed pursuant to mandatory Guidelines cannot withdraw his guilty plea based on a claim that, due to this misinformation (in light of Booker), his plea was not knowing and intelligent. The qualification results from the opinion’s muddled discussion, and especially its collapsing of two distinct issues: Whether the plea itself was knowing and voluntary, and whether an appellate waiver provision contained in a plea agreement is enforceable.

These are distinct issues, yet the opinion treats them interchangeably. Here’s a typical passage:

“The issue presented to us here is whether a defendant who, prior to …

United States v. Manuel Gonzalez, Docket No. 03-1356 (2d Cir. August 22, 2005) (Sack, Sotomayor, Raggi) (Op. by Raggi): This is a significant opinion that is long overdue. The Court finally clarified that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its own en banc decision in United States v. Thomas, 274 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 2001), drug quantity is always an element of 21 U.S.C. § 841, regardless of whether the actual sentence imposed exceeds the 20-year maximum for offenses involving an unspecified quantity of drugs under § 841(b)(1)(C). This decision thus puts an end to the Government’s nonsensical, schizophrenic interpretation of § 841 — that quantity sometimes is, but sometimes is not, an element (depending post-hoc on whether the actual sentence imposed exceeds 20 years). The takeaway is that in order for a district judge to …

United States v. Madori, Docket No. 03-1526 (2d Cir. August 19, 2005) (Op. by B.D. Parker): No new ground is broken in this fact-intensive opinion, which principally affirms a loan-sharking conviction against sufficiency and Brady/Giglio challenges. It is worth reading only for the richness of the background story: A Mob-connected lender; a loan made at 150% interest; meetings at the Diamond Club, a local strip joint; a co-defendant clandestinly cooperating with the FBI on an unrelated case (thus generating the Brady dispute); and threats involving the “twist[ing]” of the late-paying borrower’s “nuts”. Who needs “The Sopranos”! (But does anyone know when the new season starts?)…

United States v. Shitian Wu, Docket No. 03-1503 (2d Cir. August 18, 2005) (McLaughlin, Pooler, Wesley) (Op. by Wesley): Because this case was litigated by attorneys from this Office, we will refrain from commentary and stick to description.

Essentially, the majority held, with a dissent from Judge Pooler, that a false statement made in one immigration document, though immaterial to the purposes of that particular document, is nonetheless material under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) — prohibiting the making of “any false statement with respect to a material fact in any application, affidavit, or other document required by the immigration laws or regulations prescribed thereunder” — because that document “is part of a larger application process . . . and the statute is best understood as encompassing misrepresentations of material facts in that process no matter how many documents that may include.” Op. at 4. While Wu’s false statements were …

United States v. Willie Coreas, Docket No. 03-1790-cr (2d Cir. August 18, 2005) (Jacobs, Calabresi & Rakoff, D.J.) (Op. by Rakoff): Our faith in the rule of law has been restored. In this opinion, Judge Rakoff of the SDNY, writing for Judges Jacobs & Calabresi as well (thus covering the political spectrum from the Federalist Society to the ACS), concluded that the now-infamous “Operation Candyman” affidavit, excised of the Government agent’s fabrications, was insufficient to support the issuance of numerous search warrants, including that leading to Coreas’s arrest and prosecution for possession of child pornography. Unfortunately, because a prior panel of the Circuit reached an opposite conclusion on the same issue two weeks earlier in Martin (click here for our less-than-subtle critique of Martin), the panel in Coreas nonetheless upheld the search warrant.

The opinion in Coreas is highly recommended. Some examples to entice the reader: A powerful …

United States v. Kenneth Jaeggi, Docket No. 04-4543-cr (L) (2d Cir. August 17, 2005) (Op. by Winter): The private white collar bar owes an enormous debt of gratitude to Judge Winter, as well as to the fine folks at Sullivan & Cromwell (representing Jaeggi), for this astounding decision. Lawyers for well-to-do securities fraud defendants can now rest assured that they will be paid for their work from the defendant’s sizable assets, even if the Government is able to prove, after securing the defendant’s conviction, that those assets are the proceeds of the fraud in question. That’s because this decision holds that 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), generally authorizing criminal forfeiture as a punishment for any act for which civil forfeiture is authorized, does not authorize pretrial restraint of assets. The result, therefore, is that the indicted fraud defendant will continue to be able to spend his hard-earned bucks however he …

United States v. Joseph Martin, Docket No. 04-1600-cr (L) (2d Cir. August 4, 2005) (Op. by Walker): Chills ran down this reader’s spine while reading the majority opinion. If the Government can ransack one’s house and papers based on such barebones evidence — essentially, joining a listserve / e-group discussing illegal activity — what will it not be allowed to do? Judge Pooler’s spirited and thorough rebuttal of the majority’s faulty analysis warms the heart somewhat; perhaps it will spur the rest of the Circuit to order en banc rehearing. Her claim that “today the majority announces a dangerous precedent” is right on the mark. At least for now, those on the NAMBLA or NORML listserve should make sure to cancel their membership a.s.a.p.!

This case arises from the infamous “Operation Candyman” investigation, in which a Government agent lied — OK, made a false statement that clearly appears to …

Greiner v. Wells, Docket No. 04-2809-pr (2d Cir. August 8, 2005) (Op. by Wesley): This opinion, reversing the lower court’s grant of habeas, contains a very thorough discussion of the relevant facts as well as the law governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims on habeas review. It breaks no new ground, however, in concluding that trial counsel’s decision not to introduce certain evidence at trial constituted objectively reasonable strategy, given the obvious downsides of introducing the evidence in question, despite the fact that trial counsel, seven years later, could not recall why he ultimately decided not to introduce this evidence.

Perhaps the only point worth noting is the Court’s decision to discuss counsel’s subjective reasons for not introducing the evidence, even after concluding that the record amply demonstrated an objectively reasonable basis for counsel’s decision. Thus, while Strickland‘s “performance” prong is indeed an objective one, a court evaluating …

United States v. Amar Amante, Docket No. 05-3067-op (2d Cir. August 9, 2005) (Op. by Walker): There is little new in this opinion, disappointing and wrong-headed though it is. It simply follows upon three bad cases in the Circuit — United States v. Gilliam, 994 F.2d 97 (2d Cir. 1993), United States v. Belk, 346 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2003) (yours truly for appellant), and United States v. Chevere, 368 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2004) — holding generally that, except in an “extraordinarily unusual case” (and not merely an “ordinarily unusual case”?), bifurcation of the prior felony element in a felon-in-possession prosecution under 18 USC § 922(g)(1) is error. Amante merely clarifies that such an error is a mandamus-able one. Thus, in the future, if a trial judge should order bifurcation, the Government will be able to seek and obtain a writ of mandamus from the …

United States v. Jimmy Glen, Docket No. 04-2394-cr (2d Cir. August 10, 2005) (Op. by Winter): This is a great little case that serves as further reminder that counsel must always check out the details of prior convictions used to enhance a current sentence. Here, defendant pled guilty to a 21 USC § 841(b)(1)(A) charge (involving more than 50 grams of cocaine base). The Government also filed a prior felony information, alleging 2 prior drug convictions (in 1977 and 1996). The effect of these priors was a mandatory minimum life sentence on the current charge, which the district judge imposed.

The Circuit vacated the sentence on appeal, finding that the 1977 conviction was not yet “final” as required under § 841. (There were actually two 1977 convictions, but that is of no moment as neither was “final”). This was so because Glen filed timely notices of appeal from the …