Here are two recent summary orders of interest and one from March that we missed at the time:
In United States v. Pender, No. 08-5474-cr (2d Cir. May 6, 2010), there was a factual dispute as to whether the defendant was on parole when he committed the federal offense. Although the district court had concluded that he was, the court remanded the case for reconsideration. Notably, this issue was raised in the defendant’s pro se brief, not his counseled brief.
In United States v. Oruche, No. 09-0665-cr, (2d Cir. April 26, 2010), the court vacated one defendant’s sentence because he was erroneously classified as a career offender. One of his two prior drug convictions was for simple possession, not trafficking. The court also vacated a co-defendant’s sentence because the district court had used the erroneous career offender sentence as a point of reference.
Finally, in United States v. Harper, No. 09-0622-cr (March 31, 2010), the court vacated a statutory maximum supervised release violation sentence because the district court’s comments at sentencing suggested that it misunderstood the applicable law and failed to consider the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.