Federal Defenders of New York Second Circuit Blog
Failure to Order Competency Hearing Was Not Abuse of Discretion
United States v. Harry, No. 12-3623-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2013) (Pooler, Parker, and Wesley) (summary order), available here
Comparing Defendants with Different Criminal Histories Did Not Give Rise to Procedural Error at Sentencing
UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, NO. 12-5094-cr (2D CIR. DEC. 16, 2013) (KATZMANN, WINTER, AND CALABRESI) (SUMMARY ORDER), AVAILABLE HERE
The defendant in this appeal challenged his sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms and received 3 years’ prison. At sentencing, the district court compared him to another defendant with a less serious criminal history and stated that their sentences had to be similar because both were equally involved in the offense. The Court held that no procedural error occurred as a result of the comparison made between what the defendant contended were differently situated defendants. Relying on United States v. Williams, 524 F.3d 209, 216 (2d Cir. 2008), the Court reiterated that a district court can consider “factors beyond the scope of § 3553(a), as long as the outside factors ‘are not inconsistent with those listed in § 3553(a) and are logically applied …
Internally Inconsistent Testimony by Defendant at Fatico Hearing Supported Adverse Credibility Finding
UNITED STATES V. NUNEZ, ET. AL., NO. 11-5019-cv (2D CIR. DEC. 16, 2013) (LIVINGSTON, LYNCH, AND HOHIER) (SUMMARY ORDER), AVAILABLE HERE
The defendant in this appeal challenged his sentence as procedurally unreasonable. Specifically, he claimed that the district court erroneously denied him safety valve relief, held him responsible for 5 to 15 kilograms of cocaine, and denied a departure for acceptance of responsibility. The defendant was convicted after trial of participating in a drug conspiracy. The district court conducted a Fatico hearing prior to imposing sentence and credited another witness’s testimony over the defendant’s. The Court held that there was no error in this credibility finding much less clear error, which is the standard of review for findings of fact made after a Fatico hearing. The defendant’s testimony regarding a minimal number of drug transactions was internally inconsistent the amount of money he admitted having in his home. The reasons for having this money, too, changed during …
Good Faith Exception Applied to Warrantless Use of GPS Tracking Device for Six Months in 2009
UNITED STATES V. AGUIAR, ET. AL., NOS. 11-5262-CR (L), 11-5329-CR (CON), 11-5330-cr (CON) (2D CIR. DEC. 13, 2013) (JACOBS, POOLER, AND HALL), AVAILABLE HERE
The Court in this published opinion denied defendant’s multiple claims of error by the district court arising out of Rule 12 and post-trial motions. The most predominant issue involved the government’s warrantless placement of a GPS device on the defendant’s car from January to July 2009 and whether it violated the Fourth Amendment where officers have reasonable suspicion and probable cause to execute a search. After a detailed analysis of similar out-of-Circuit cases and identifying relevant Supreme Court precedent in existence at the time of the government’s conduct, the Court ultimately held that the good faith exception to the warrant requirement applied.
Burlington, Vermont’s Police Department and the DEA investigated a cocaine and heroin distribution conspiracy in mid to late 2008, which included Aguiar (the defendant) as a suspect. …
Defendant Knowingly and Voluntarily Waived Right to Appeal
United States v. Coston, No. 12-4622-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2013) (Katzmann, Winter, and Calabresi), available here
Magistrate Judge’s Denial of Post-Trial Motions Not Reviewable on Appeal
UNITED STATES V. LAURIA (PAPPAS), NO. 13-269-cr (2D CIR. DEC. 10, 2013) (LIVINGSTON, CARNEY, AND KOELTL) (SUMMARY ORDER), AVAILABLE HERE
The Court in this summary order rejected for lack of jurisdiction a defendant’s appeal from a magistrate judge’s order denying various post-trial motions. The Court noted that a magistrate judge’s general authority is derived from 18 U.S.C. § 636, which contemplates authority conferred by, among other things, referral from a district judge under certain provisions at subsection (b). In this case, it was unclear whether referral occurred pursuant to § 636(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), or (b)(3), though it did not matter. Each provision required the district court to enter a final order, which never occurred. Absent such a final order, the magistrate judge’s determinations were not reviewable on appeal.…
Refusal to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas Directed at Third Parties Is Not Immediately Appealable
United States v. Punn, No. 13-2780-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2013) (Pooler, Lynch, and Droney), available here
Conspiracy Charges Barred by Statute of Limitations
United States v. Grimm, et al., Nos. 12-4310-cr; 12-4365-cr; 12-4371-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 9, 2013) (Kearse, Jacobs, and Straub), available here
Tactical Decision Not to Object to Condition of Supervised Release Waives Review of the Condition on Appeal
UNITED STATES V. PINNEY, NO. 12-3954-cr (2D CIR. DEC. 9, 2013) (KEARSE, JACOBS, AND STRAUB) (SUMMARY ORDER), AVAILABLE HERE
The Court in this summary order rejected the defendant’s constitutional challenge to a condition of his supervised release. The defendant agreed to the condition being added to the terms of his release and waived his rights to a hearing and assistance of counsel prior to imposition. At a later sentencing hearing for violating that same condition, he never objected to the condition and only asked the district court to be lenient. The Court characterized the decision not to challenge the condition’s “obvious” constitutional infirmities prior to sentencing as tactical. As a result, any objections to the condition were waived.…
Involuntary Confession Erroneously Admitted at Conspiracy Trial Warrants New Trials for All Three Co-Defendants
UNITED STATES V. TAYLOR, ET. AL., NOS. 11-2201(L), 11-2426(CON), 11-2639(CON) (2D CIR. DEC. 4, 2013) (KEARSE, JACOBS, AND CARNEY), AVAILABLE HERE
This published decision vacated three defendants’ convictions for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery of a Manhattan pharmacy in 2008 and brandishing of a firearm. The Court remanded for new trials after determining that interrogating agents took undue advantage of one defendant’s diminished mental state and overbore his will in obtaining what was held to be an involuntary confession. The Court further held that admitting the tainted confession at trial, even with a limiting instruction, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to all three defendants.
According to the opinion, Vasquez drove Taylor, Rosario and a woman named Luana Miller to rob a pharmacy in Manhattan on Christmas Eve in 2008. With Miller already inside posing as a customer after hours, Rosario entered the pharmacy brandishing a gun …