Navigation

Federal Defenders of New York Second Circuit Blog


Friday, February 23rd, 2024

Circuit upholds conviction based on a plea to an indictment mistakenly alleging that the crime occurred on a date four months earlier than the actual date.

In United States v. Morgan, No. 22-2798 (2d Cir. February 23, 2024), the Circuit (Parker, Lynch and Khan) affirmed, in a summary order, the defendant’s conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition based on an indictment that charged and a guilty plea that admitted to that crime occurring on March 8, 2020, although the offense indisputably occurred on August 31, 2020. Morgan was sentenced for the crime occurring on August 31, 2020, which had been charged in the original complaint, but not in the indictment to which he pled guilty. The Circuit concluded that there was no constructive amendment because “the conduct Morgan was charged with, pled guilty to, and ultimately was sentenced for was one and the same,” and he was on notice of the “essence of the crime.”…

Posted by
Categories: constructive amendment, indictment

Posted By
Categories: constructive amendment, indictment

Continue Reading
Wednesday, February 21st, 2024

Where a §2255 petition alleges that counsel failed to file a requested notice of appeal, the district court may not summarily dismiss but must undertake a factual inquiry.

In United States v. Thomas, No. 22-2026 (February 21, 2024), the Circuit (Jacobs, Sack, and Nardini) reversed, in a per curiam opinion, the district court’s summary denial of a §2255 petition alleging that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal as petitioner requested. Thomas swore in his petition that he told his lawyer to file the notice of appeal. The district court held that this allegation was insufficient because Thomas did not include details, such as when and how the request was made, whether there were discussions about it, and whether he was aware of the deadlines for an appeal. The Circuit held that the district court’s summary denial was an abuse of discretion. The Court reaffirmed its precedent in United States v. Campuzano, 442 F.3d 770, 776 (2d Cir. 2006), that a factual inquiry is required “when a defendant claims that his attorney failed to file …

Posted by
Categories: ineffective assistance of counsel, Notice of Appeal

Posted By
Categories: ineffective assistance of counsel, Notice of Appeal

Continue Reading
Friday, December 8th, 2023

New York Narcotics Convictions Still Aren’t Federal Controlled Substance Offenses

In United States v. Chaires, No. 20-4162 (2d Cir. Dec. 7, 2023) (per curiam), the Second Circuit (Carney, Sullivan, and Menashi) remanded for resentencing, on plain error review, where the defendant was sentenced as a career offender based on New York controlled substance predicates. As our dear readers are well-aware, Chaires follows in the footsteps of several important Second Circuit cases holding that state drug crimes are categorically overbroad – and cannot be used to enhance a sentence – because they punish possession of more substances than the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA). To recap:

  • United States v. Townsend, 897 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2018). In this leading case, in addition to holding that the categorical approach applies to the controlled-substance-offense determination, the Court ruled that, because N.Y.P.L. 220.31 punishes possession of human chorionic gonadotropin, but the CSA does not, it cannot serve as a predicate for offense-level-enhancement
…
Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Thursday, December 7th, 2023

Circuit Vacates Two Supervised Release Conditions

In United States v. Rodriguez, No. 22-1820-cr (2d. Cir. Dec. 7, 2023) (summary order), the Circuit (Kearse, Calabresi, and Nathan) vacated two drug- and alcohol-related special conditions on plain error review.

At sentencing, the district court imposed a condition requiring Rodriguez to undergo drug treatment evaluation, and “if deemed necessary,” attend outpatient drug treatment. The written judgment, however, imposed an unconditional drug treatment requirement, without the evaluation component. The Court vacated the written condition due to its conflict with the district court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing, which “ordinarily controls”; “a defendant must be present at pronouncement of sentence.” It remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the oral sentence.

The district court also imposed a condition that Rodriguez abstain from alcohol during the aforementioned treatment. While the government agreed that the treatment condition should be vacated unless an evaluation deemed it necessary, it argued that the alcohol provision could …

Posted by
Categories: sentencing, supervised release

Posted By
Categories: sentencing, supervised release

Continue Reading
Thursday, November 16th, 2023

The Government is seeking certiorari from Range v. Attorney General, United States, 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023) (en banc), which held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to Bryan Range, whose predicate offense was a (1995) conviction for making a false statement to obtain government benefits. See Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Bryan David Range, No. 23-374. The case is to be conferenced tomorrow, November 17, 2023.

The Solicitor General filed the government’s petition for a writ of certiorari on October 5, 2023. Respondent Bryan Range’s papers were filed on October 18, 2023. The Solicitor General filed its reply on November 1, 2023.

The Supreme Court docket is available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-374.html…

Posted by
Categories: 922(g), second amendment

Posted By
Categories: 922(g), second amendment

Continue Reading
Tuesday, November 14th, 2023

Supreme Court grants certiorari to an alleged drug courier (challenging a federal drug conviction) because the prosecution used an “expert witness” to rebut her defense that she didn’t know about the drugs that were hidden inside her car, which she said belonged to her boyfriend. Petitioner says the “expert” testimony violated Fed.R.Evid. 704(b).

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Diaz v. United States, No. 23-14 (cert. granted, Nov. 13, 2023).

Discussions and relevant cert. papers are available here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/diaz-v-united-states/

The petition for certiorari frames the “Question Presented” as follows:

Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) provides: “In a criminual case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone.” Fed.R.Evid.704(b).

The question is: In a prosecution for drug trafficking —— where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs —— does Rule 704(b) permit a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters?

 …

Posted by
Categories: expert witnesses, Rule 704(b)

Posted By
Categories: expert witnesses, Rule 704(b)

Continue Reading

In a summary order, the Second Circuit vacates a district court’s judgment imposing a complete ban on internet use, as a condition of supervised release. The Circuit concludes that it’s “substantively unreasonable” to impose such a ban on someone whose offense involved child pornography, and no evidence suggested he “is likely to seek out children on social media or prey on them in reality.” United States v. Gonyea, Nos. 22-1722-cr, 22-1727-cr (2d Cir. Nov. 13, 2023) (C.J.J.’s Jacobs, Lohier, Lee) (“Summary Order”).

I. Background

In 2017, Appellant was convicted of one count “of receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (b)(1)” and sentenced to 72 months’  imprisonment “and a life term of supervised release.” Order at 3.

In 2021, after his release from custody, Probation Officers discovered that he had “created two email accounts but failed to disclose them to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services,” as required by the terms of his supervised release. Id. Probation Officers also “seized an unauthorized cell phone . . . containing at least three images of child pornography.” Order at 3-4.

After Gonyea admitted to several supervised release violations, the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment “and a new life term of supervised release.” Order at 4. In addition, he “separately  pleaded guilty . . . to one count of …

Posted by
Categories: child pornography, Sex offender registration, substantive unreasonableness, supervised release

Posted By
Categories: child pornography, Sex offender registration, substantive unreasonableness, supervised release

Continue Reading
Monday, October 30th, 2023

Five Second Circuit Judges Dissent From Denial Of Rehearing En Banc On Whether RICO Predicate Offenses Must Be Factually Set Forth In The Indictment.

In United States v. Montague, __ F.4th __, 2023 WL 6852846 (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2023), Judge Perez, joined by Judges Lee, Robinson, Nathan, and Merriam, dissented from the Circuit’s denial of rehearing en banc. The dissent posed the question (and answer) of “exceptional importance”: “does an indictment for a crime with predicated offenses as necessary elements require any factual detail regarding those predicate offenses? The answer, in our view, should be an easy ‘yes.’”

A divided panel of the Second Circuit (Menashi and Bianco; Jacobs dissenting) had upheld a bare bones indictment alleging the predicates – which are elements of RICO – only as “violations of Title 21 United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 846″ with no factual detail. United States v. Montague, 67 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2023). See Blog Post, May 12, 2023. Judge Jacobs dissented on the ground that the specific acts constituting the …

Posted by
Categories: CCE, grand jury, indictment

Posted By
Categories: CCE, grand jury, indictment

Continue Reading
Tuesday, October 17th, 2023

Second circuit affirms 45-year sentence despite an “inexcusable” error

In United States v. Gates, the Second Circuit today affirmed a 45-year sentence for a person with no criminal history, who was convicted of three counts related to sexual exploitation of her child based on five images found on the child’s father’s phone. (Even though the child’s father, unlike Gates, had thousands of additional images of child pornography as well as a criminal history, he received the same sentence as Gates). The Circuit appeared completely unmoved by her argument that her sentence was substantively unreasonable, failing to engage with or even mention any facts about Gates’s personal background.

The Circuit, however, did find that the district court erred in at least two ways. First, the Circuit found that the district court improperly counted a conspiracy count as a separate group. But, the Circuit said, this error was harmless because the offense level was so high that it would still …

Posted by
Categories: Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Tuesday, October 3rd, 2023

Attempted Murder is a Crime of Violence (For Now)

In yesterday’s United States v. Pastore, the Circuit (Walker, Sullivan, Nathan, C.JJ.) held attempted murder in aid of racketeering – specifically, attempted New York murder – is a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

The Circuit reasoned that, because murder requires someone to intentionally “’cause the death of another person,'” Slip Op. at 14 (quoting N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25(1)), and because “intentionally causing the death of another person involves the use of force,” id., attempting to murder requires the “attempted use . . . of physical force against the person . . . of another.”  § 924(c)(3)(A).

The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022), the Circuit said, does not compel otherwise.  The Court there held attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a “crime of violence” given that it can be committed by means of an “…

Posted by
Categories: crime of violence

Posted By
Categories: crime of violence

Continue Reading
Friday, September 29th, 2023

Supreme Court will revisit the application of the Confrontation Clause to forensic evidence.

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Smith v. Arizona, No. 22-899. The question presented is:

Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst’s statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert’s opinion, and (b) the defendant did not independently seek to subpoena the analyst.

Defense counsel should be sure to make Confrontation Clause objections whenever the government seeks to use or admit forensic evidence at trial without calling the individual (or all of the individuals) who actually performed all of the underlying forensic testing.

Smith will hopefully bring some clarity to this area of law. The Supreme Court has long held that criminal defendants have a …

Posted by
Categories: Confrontation Clause, Sixth Amendment

Posted By
Categories: Confrontation Clause, Sixth Amendment

Continue Reading