Federal Defenders of New York Second Circuit Blog

Second Circuit: Postal Robbery And Aggravated Postal Robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a), Even On Pinkerton Theory Of Liability, Are 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) Crimes Of Violence.

by

In Pannell v. United States, No. 21–2849 (2d Cir. Aug. 28, 2024) (Menashi, joined by Raggi and Wesley), the Second Circuit held that postal robbery and aggravated postal robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a), even pursuant to a Pinkerton theory of liability, are 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) crimes of violence. A jury convicted Pannell of conspiracy … Read more

A victory for lenity?

by

Yesterday, in Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court held that 18 USC 666 prohibits bribes to state and local officials, but does not prohibit  gratuities to state and local officials. The difference between a bribe and a gratuity is largely one of timing of the agreement: a bribe is given to a public official … Read more

Supreme Court Summarily Vacates Second Circuit’s Opinion In United States v. Montague, Which Upheld A Barebones CCE Indictment Alleging No Specific Predicate Violations.

by

In United States v. Montague, 67 F.4th 520 (2d Cir. 2023), a divided panel of the Second Circuit affirmed a barebones CCE indictment alleging only that the defendant “did knowingly, willfully and unlawfully engage in a Continuing Criminal Enterprise in that he did violate Title 21 United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 846, which violations … Read more

In United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court applies Bruen for the first time to a criminal statute

by

At long last, the Supreme Court last week issued its eagerly-anticipated decision in United States v. Rahimi, involving a post-Bruen Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which criminalizes possession of a firearm while one is subject to a domestic violence restraining order. Unsurprisingly to anyone who listened to the oral argument, the Court, … Read more

Smith reaffirms defendants’ right to confront forensic experts, while leaving open the question of which expert statements are “testimonial.”

by

Last week, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Smith v. Arizona, No. 22-899 (June 21, 2024), that criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to confront experts who provide forensic evidence for the prosecution. This right extends to testimonial statements by experts whose testing and opinions form the basis of a different expert’s opinion. This issue … Read more

What categorical approach?

by

Today, in Brown v. United States, the Supreme Court held that state drug convictions count as ACCA predicates if they involved a drug that was on the federal drug schedules at the time of the state conviction. In Brown, legislatures had eliminated two substances from the relevant drug schedules – hemp and ioflupane – between the … Read more

A district court may not base its sentence on a disagreement with the categorical approach.

by

In United States v. Marcus Odom, No. 23-6105 (2d Cir. May 8, 2024) (summary order), the Second Circuit upheld the defendant’s challenged prison sentence, while also opining that a sentencing court may not increase a prison sentence based on its disagreement with the so-called “categorical” approach. Odom’s case was before the district court for resentencing … Read more

IAC claim rejected on direct appeal because lack of prejudice to defendant is “beyond doubt” and district court sufficiently explained its sentence given “the lesser specificity required for a [revocation] sentence”

by

Not sure why United States v. Antonio Ortiz, 2d Cir. No. 22-1775-cr (April 30, 2024), is a published opinion rather than a summary order. Judge Menashi’s opinion for the panel (Calabresi, Menashi, Perez) rejects Ortiz’s challenge to his five-year sentence, imposed upon revocation of supervised release after the district court found that he raped his … Read more

Circuit holds that federal supervised release only begins when the defendant is released from subsequent state custody, not when he is released from federal custody into state custody.

by

In United States v. Freeman, No. 23-6394 (2d Cir. April 23, 2024), the defendant was ordered to begin his supervised release almost ten years after his release from federal prison, when he was finally released from state custody on charges that were dismissed. Freeman argued that his supervised release term began upon his release from … Read more

Defendant’s complaint concerning scope of prior appellate mandate is barred by appellate waiver in new plea agreement, and the district court did not err in considering his sectarian motivation at sentencing

by

In United States v. Maalik Alim Jones, 2d Cir. No. 22-2958-cr (April 29, 2024), the panel (Walker, Park, Perez) in a per curiam opinion rejects Jones’s challenge to his 25-year sentence, imposed on remand after a prior appeal and following Jones’s guilty plea under a new plea agreement in which he waived the right to … Read more