Case Summaries

Asset Forfeiture

[08/31] Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp.
In an action seeking to attach defendant's property in New York as pre-judgment security for a pending arbitration in Hong Kong, dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court did not err in declining to fashion an equitable remedy in circumstances where it was clear that the original attachment order could not be sustained in light of Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009).

[08/27] US v. Ali
District court's conviction of defendant, imposition of a 57-month sentence, and orders of $4.9 million in restitution and $2.56 million in forfeiture, for running a grocery store and a food stamp scam that defrauded the United States Department of Agriculture out of several million dollars, are affirmed for the most part where: 1) the record does not support defendant's claim that during the plea colloquy, the district court failed to ensure that he knew the elements of wire fraud; 2) defendant has not shown that the government's statement about his sentence exposure affected any substantial right; 3) district court's conclusion that defendant had not accepted responsibility was not clear error; 4) district court's factual findings supporting the forfeiture award were not clearly erroneous; 5) district court's restitution order is remanded to correct the restitution award to reflect that the amount proven at the forfeiture proceeding was $4.29 million; and 6) defendant's motion seeking remand for evidentiary hearing is denied.

[08/05] US v. $231,930.00 in US Currency
In an in rem forfeiture action by the government seeking forfeiture of defendant's currency, the order of forfeiture is affirmed where: 1) a traffic violation occurred, creating probable cause for the search of defendant's vehicle; 2) the facts did not show that the officer unconstitutionally extended the legal traffic stop; and 3) defendant made no effort to limit or stop the search once it began.

[08/04] Mesle v. Signed Personal Check No. 730
In claimant's appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to set aside an entry of default in a forfeiture proceeding against checks drawn on claimant's accounts and funds in those accounts, the order is reversed where the district court erred by holding the movant to a standard inappropriate for determining whether an unrepresented lay party's conduct demonstrated culpability; and made merits decisions as to the movant’s defenses that were premature at this stage of the proceedings, and, moreover, were incorrect.

[08/04] US v. Barr
In the government's suit against defendant and his wife, seeking to foreclose a federal tax lien, created by the couple's debt for unpaid income taxes, against the home that the couple own as tenants by the entirety, district court's determination that foreclosure was appropriate is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly determined that the wife is entitled to fifty percent of the proceeds of the foreclosure sale; and 2) even if the Court in US v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677 (1983) had intended to mandate application of its four-part balancing test prior to any court-ordered foreclosure sale under section 7403, the decision of the district court would still be affirmed as there is no evidence that the district court abused its discretion.

Read More

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/02] US v. Beale
Defendants' convictions for conspiracy to prevent by intimidation a judicial officer from discharging her official duties, and obstruction of justice, are affirmed where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of conspiracy to prevent by force, intimidation or threat, an officer of the U.S. from discharging her duties; 2) the First Amendment did not bar defendants' convictions because the conduct underlying the convictions was an unprotected true threat; and 3) the jury was advised more than once about the protections afforded by the First Amendment.

[09/02] US v. Holmes
Defendant's convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and for possessing with intent to distribute in excess of five grams of crack cocaine, are affirmed in part where the evidence was sufficient to overcome a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support defendant's conviction on the felon-in-possession charge. However, the convictions are reversed in part where neither defendant nor his attorney on his behalf made a clear and intentional waiver of defendant's rights to confrontation that would allow the full extent of the confidential informant's statements read by an officer.

[09/02] US v. Rea
District court's conviction of defendants for conspiracy to distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine and other related offenses, and their sentences are affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) because the government concedes defendant's argument, that the conspiracy alleged in his indictment is a lesser included offense of the continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) and that, along with a special assessment for each, his concurrent sentences thus amount to cumulative punishment not authorized by Congress, defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy are vacated; 2) the evidence presented against defendant was sufficient to justify his continuing criminal enterprise conviction; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the statements made by defendant's co-conspirators and any error related to an agent's testimony was harmless; 4) district court did not plainly err by imposing the firearm sentencing enhancement upon the defendant as the government demonstrated that the guns were found in close proximity to drug paraphernalia and that defendant dealt in large quantities of meth on a frequent basis; 5) sufficient evidence supported co-defendant's conviction for conspiracy as based on the evidence, any reasonable juror could find that the relationship between the defendants exceeded that of a buyer-seller relationship; and 6) district court's calculation errors did not affect co-defendant's substantial rights.

[09/02] US v. Ritchie Special Cred. Invs., Ltd.
In intervenor's application to intervene in an adversary proceeding initiated by the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1345 against the alleged author of a Ponzi scheme, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the litigation progressed substantially between the initiation of these proceedings and intervenor's second motion to intervene; and 2) intervenor had knowledge of all the facts surrounding the district court's injunction, and failed to take issue with it when first presented with an opportunity to do so.

[09/02] US v. Slaight
Conviction of a defendant for receipt and possession of child pornography shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, and sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 15 years by reason of a previous conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, is reversed as, defendant's motion to suppress incriminating statements that he had made when questioned by federal officers at a police station should have been granted as facts are incontrovertible and show that the average person in defendant's position would have thought himself in custody, and any other conclusion would leave Miranda in tatters.

Read More