United States v. Hassan, No. 05-6949 (2d Cir. August 21, 2009) (Calabresi, Pooler, CJJ)

Hassan was convicted of three conspiracy counts – (1) importation of a controlled substance (2) distribution of a controlled substance, and (3) money laundering – along with forty-one substantive money laundering counts, in connection with his importation of khat into the United States. In September of 2008, the court of appeals reversed his conviction on the substantive money laundering counts due to insufficient evidence, and remanded for a new trial on all of the conspiracy convictions because of an erroneous jury instruction. See “Krazy Khat,” posted September 27, 2008.

Both sides sought rehearing, and this amended opinion, which deals with the claims raised in the rehearing petitions, supersedes the original without changing the outcome. In the court’s own words, here is the difference between the original opinion and the new one:

[T] his amended opinion replaces …

Here is the latest collection of summary orders of interest:

In United States v. Bender, No. 08-3103-cr (2d Cir. August 14, 2009), the court rejected both substantive and procedural challenges to an upward departure in a child pornography case, even though the district court “should have provided a written statement of the specific reasons for its sentence.”

In United States v. Giordano, No. 07-3487-cr (2d Cir. August 12, 2009), the court affirmed the decision not to resentence the defendant on a Crosby remand, even though the district court had “mischaracterized the record in rejecting” the defendant’s harsh conditions of pretrial confinement – solitary confinement for 23 hours each day – as a “consideration that might justify a decision to resentence.” The court’s “misstatement” did not undermine it’s decision not to resentence, since it also concluded that the original sentence would not have been materially different had it known at the …

United States v. Bah, No. 07-4370-cr (2d Cir. July 31, 2009) (Jacobs, Walker, Calabresi, CJJ)

Boubacar Bah ran a licensed money transmission business in New Jersey, but did not have an equivalent license in New York. He was convicted of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1960, but the circuit reversed, finding that the district court erred in explaining the scope of § 1960 in its jury instructions.

Section 1960 makes it a crime to operate an “unlicensed money transmitting business” in interstate or foreign commerce in a “State where such operation is punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony under State law.” Under New York State law, it is a crime both to receive money for transmission and to transmit it without a license. Only the second of these is covered by § 1960, however, since the federal statute does cover the receipt …