Here are three more summary orders of interest.
In United States v. Delacruz, No. 08-1192-cr (2d Cir. September 11, 2009), the district court did not inform the defendant of the possibility of a forfeiture during the plea allocution, but still entered a forfeiture order at sentencing. While the allocution error was not enough to warrant vacating the judgment of conviction, the court granted a limited remand so that the forfeiture order could be vacated.
In United States v. Serna, No. 07-5288-cr (2d Cir. September 11, 2009), the court denied an ineffectiveness claim on direct review, instead of deferring judgment and inviting a future 2255 motion, which is its usual practice. Here, the court concluded “beyond any doubt” that the defendant, who avoided a ten-year mandatory minimum through “safety valve” relief, could not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.
In United States v. Valentine, No. 06-2679-cr (2d Cir. August 31, 2009), the court found a sentencing error to be moot because the sentence had expired.
Comments are closed.