07- 5363- cr , 07- 5551- cr , 09- 3135- pr

Un ited St ates v . An dre w C apoc cia

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER

R U LI N GS BY S U M M A R Y O R D ER D O NO T H A V E PREC EDEN TI A L EFFEC T. CI TATI O N TO S U M M A R Y O R D E R S F IL E D A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1 , 2 0 0 7 , IS P E R M IT T E D A N D IS G O V E R N E D B Y T H IS C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1 AN D FEDER A L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. I N A B R I EF O R O T H E R P A P E R IN W H IC H A L IT IG A N T C IT E S A S U M M A R Y O R D E R , IN E A C H P A R A G R A P H IN W HI CH A CI T AT I ON APP E ARS , AT L E AS T ONE CI T AT I ON M US T E I T HER BE T O THE F E DE RAL AP PE NDI X OR BE ACCOM PA NI E D BY T HE NOT AT I ON: “ ( S UM M ARY ORDE R) . ” A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S U M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C OP Y OF T HA T S U M M A R Y OR D E R T OG E T HE R WI T H T HE PA PE R I N W HI CH THE S UM M ARY ORDE R I S CI T E D ON ANY PA RT Y NOT RE PR E S E NT E D BY C O U N SEL U N LE SS TH E SU M M A R Y O R D ER I S A V A I LA B LE I N A N ELE C TR O N I C D A TA B A SE W H I C H I S PU B LI C LY A C C ESSI B LE W I TH O U T P A Y M EN T O F F EE ( SU C H A S TH E D A TA B A SE A V A I L A B L E A T HT T P : / / W W W . C A 2 . U S C OU R T S . G OV / ) . I F N O C OP Y I S S E R V E D B Y R E A S ON OF T HE AV AI L ABI L I T Y OF T HE ORDE R ON S UCH A DAT ABAS E , T HE CI T AT I ON M US T I NCL UDE R E F E R E N C E T O T HA T D A T A B A S E A N D T HE D OC KE T N U M B E R OF T HE C A S E I N WHI C H T HE O R D E R W A S E N T E R E D . At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 30 day

of Nove mber, two thousand a nd nine. th Present: J ON O. NE WMAN,

RO SEM AR

Y S. POO L ER, ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, Cir c uit Judg e s.

_____________________________________________________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA., Appellee ,

-v- Nos. 07-5363-c r 07-5551-c r 09-3135-pr ANDREW CAPOCC IA, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt. Ap pe ari ngfo r A

pp e lla nt: STE PHA

NIE M . CA RV L I

N, L aw O ff

ic e s o f S te ph anie M. Carvlin, New Y ork, NYDef endant a lso continued to actively challeng e his conviction in the district court, f iling 1 multipl e additional motions to dism iss the indictment. His appeals fr om the denials of some of these motions have be en consolidate d under doc ket number 08- 5843-cr . J udg e Winter stayed briefingin that appea l pendingthe re solution of No. 07-5363-cr . That ca se should g o to another panel in the or dinary

course . 2 Appea ringfor Appe llee: GREGORY L . WAPL ES, Assistant United St ates Attorne y , of

counsel to Thomas D. Anderson, United States Attorney for the D i s tr i c to f

V e r m o nt , B ur l i n g t o n , V e r

m o nt( Jam e s J. G e l b e r , P a u l J. Van de Gra af, on the brief)

.

Appea l from the United States District Court for the District of Ve rmont (J . Gar van Murtha, Judge)

. In d oc ke t numbe rs 07 -5 36 3- c r a nd 07 -5 55 1- c r, de fe nd ant- a

pp e lla nt ( “ de fe nd ant” ) a

pp e a ls the Novembe r 16, 2007, orde r of the United States District Court for the District of V ermont (Murtha, J.) denying de fenda nt’s motion to di smiss hi s second supe rsedingindictment pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) (B ) of the F eder al Rules of Criminal Procedur e. De fenda nt filed a pro se motion to d ism iss theind ic tme nt a ft e r h is c onvic tio n a nd se nte nc e ha d b e e n a ff

ir me d b ut whil e his c a se was re manded to the district cour t for re calc ulation of the cour t’s forf eiture a war d. See United States v. Capoccia , 247 Fe d. Appx. 311, 318 (2d Ci r. 2007) ( aff irming de fenda

nt’s conviction and sente nce) ; United States v. Capoccia , 503 F.3d 103 ( 2d Cir. 2007) (Sotomayor, J.) (vacating in part the district cour

t’s forf eiture a war d). Afte r the district cour t denied def

endant’ s motion, the g overnme nt conce ded that counts 14 a nd 15 of the indictment — the money laundering counts — should be dismissed. Additionally , in docket number 09-3135-pr , defe ndant moves for a ce rtificate of a pp e a la bil ity , to pr oc e e d in

fo rm a pa up e ri s, fo r a

pp ointme nt o f c ouns e l, f

or imm e diate adjudication, and f

or bail pendingrevie w of the a ppeal f rom the denia l of his habea s corpus p e t i t i o n . W e a s s um e th e p art i e s ’ f am i l i ar i ty w i thth e un d e r l yi n gf a c t s an d p r o c e d ur a l h i s t o r

y. Def endant’ s motion i n No. 09-3135-pr for a cer tificate of appea lability

is without m erit. Whil e Nos. 07-5363- cr a

nd 07-5551-c r we re pe nding, de fenda nt petitioned for habe as re lief. 1 The a ble district court, fa ced w ith a vexing number of motions, properly

denied the ha

beas motion as premature in view of the pe ndency of def endant’ s numerous appe als and in view of the absenc e of “ extraordinary circ umstances” justifying immediate consideration of a sec tion 2255 motion. S ee Ca

paldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1124 (6th Cir. 1998). Def endant’ s appea l from the orde r deny ing his motion to dismi ss his indi ctment is more compelling . Rule 12(b)(3) (B ) of the F eder al Rules of Criminal Procedur e provide s that “at a ny tim e wh ile thec a se is p e nd ing , th e c ourt may he ar a c la im that th e ind ic tme nt o r i nf or matio n f a ils3

to i nv ok e thec ourt ' s juri sd ic tio n o r t o s tate an o ff e ns e .” Thus , a

c la im that an in dic tme nt f a ils to state an of

fense may

be ra ised for the first time on appea l. United States v. Wex ler, 621 F .2d 1218, 1223 (2d Cir. 1980). Ag ain, the g overnme nt conce des on appe al that counts 14 and 15 of the indictment should be dismissed and defe ndant’s convic tions on these counts vac ated. Where a count of a convic tion is overturned, the or dinary proce dure is to re mand for denovo rese ntencing . See United States v. Quintieri, 306 F .3d 1217, 1229 n.6 (2d Cir. 2002); United S t at e s v . R i g a s , N o . 0 8

- 3 4 8 5

- c r , 2 0 0 9 W L3 1 6 6 0 6 6 , at* 5 ( 2 d C i r . O c t

. 5 , 2 0 0 9 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, th i s ca s e mu s tb e R E M AN DE D f o r r es en t en ci n g. Al tho ugh th e g ov e rnme nt’ s c on c e ssi on fo rc e s u s to re mand

fo r r e se nte nc ing , in

do ingso we note that defe ndant’s other challeng es to the indictment arewithout merit. Bec ause de fenda nt did no t c ha lle ng e theind ic tme nt p ri or to a pp e a lin ghis c onvic tio n, we re vie w d e fe nd ant’ s c la ims for plain e rror . United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 633 (2002); United States v. Thomas, 274 F .3 d 6 55 , 6 64 -6 6 ( 2d

Cir . 2 00 1) (e n b anc ). “ It is g e ne ra lly su ff ic ie nt t hat an in dic tme nt s e t f

or th theof fe ns e in t he wo rd s o f t

he statut e its e lf

, a s lo nga s th os e wo rd s o f t he mse lve s f

ull y , d ir e c tly and e xpre ssl y , w ith out any

un c e rt a int

y or ambi guit y , s e t f or th a ll thee le me nts ne c e ssa ry to constitute the offe nse intended to be punished.” Ha mling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974) ( internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. F rias, 521 F .3d 229, 235 (2d Cir. 2008). See a lso Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c) ( “indictment or infor mation must be a plain, conc ise, and definite written statement of the e ssential fac ts constituti ngthe offe nse cha rg ed”)

. In his moti on below and his initial briefs on a ppeal, de fenda

nt argued that the indictment was de fec tive beca

use the a lleg ations contained in the Interstate T ranspor tation of Stolen Property (“I TSP”) counts wer e fa ctually false. H oweve r, in revie wingthe fa cial suff iciency of an indictment, we assume that the fac ts recited in it ar e true . Boyce Motor L ines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952); United States v. Von B arta , 635 F.2d 999, 1002 ( 2d Cir. 1980). Thus, eve n if defe ndant wer e right that as a fa ctual matter , the wire transfe rs that forme d the basis for his I TSP convictions were intra state transf ers—the jur

y , it should be noted, found oth e rw ise—th is w ou ld n ot u nd e rm inethefa c ia l su ff

ic ie nc y of the ind ic tme nt. In his supplemental reply brief, de fenda

nt makes the a dditional argument that the inc lus ion of langua g e de sc ribin gde fe nd ant’ s “ sc he me ” to c onve rt un e arn e d r e ta ine r f

e e s to his persona l benef

it render s the I TSP counts fatally problematic. V arious portions of the indictment purp or t to de sc ribe de fe nd ant’ s “ sc he me , b e tw e e n 1 99 7 a nd 20 02 , to c onve rt

to h is o wn

be ne fi t and to the bene fit of others une arne d reta iner fe es paid by clients to the Capocc ia L aw Cente rs.” Def endant a rgues that, although “[t] he entire structure of the indictment is designed to cha rg e an I TSP s c he me ,” theI TSP s tatut e , 1 8 U .S. C. § 23 14 , d oe s n ot p ro hib it “ sc he me s. ” Thus , defe ndant claims that the I TSP counts fail to state an offe nse. We are bound by

the pre vious panel’s c onclusions reg ardingthe indictment. E.g ., Ag ostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 236 (1997); United States v. Quintieri, 306 F .3d 1217, 1225 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ; S ant am ar i n a

v . S e ar s , R o e b u c k

& C o . , 4 6 6 F

. 3 d

5 7 0 , 5 7 1

- 7 2 ( 7 thC i r . 2 0 0 6 )

. In th e p re s en tca s e, a p re v i o u s p an el o f th i s C o urth as h el d th at“[ t ] h e Ind i ctm en td o es n o tch ar ge any mis c on du c t prior

to M ay 20 00 ... e ith e r a s p art

of an o ng oin gsc he me or

a s d isc re te a c ts ... wh ile it r e fe rs to t

he e xiste nc e of

a sc he me , it

do e s n ot c ha

rg e a sc he me .” I d. at 11 1 ( e mph a sis4

added) . Under

the law of

the ca se doctrine , these re marks ar e dispositive of defe ndant’s argument that the indictment failed to c harg e I TSP because it cha rg ed a “ scheme .” Even if wewer e not bound by the pre vious panel’s c onclusion that the indictment did not c ha rg e a sc he me , w e wo uld

sti ll c on c lud e that th e inc lus ion of the wo rd “ sc he me ” in t

he I TSP counts did not render

the indictment fac ially

defe ctive. The I TSP counts ex plicitly charg e all the el em en t s o f th e c o rr es p o n d i n g s t atut e, wh i chi s i d en t i fi edatth e b o tt o mo f th e c o unt : th ey al l ege that on a series of listed dates, de fenda nt transmitted in interstate commer ce va rious identified sums of money

knowingthese money s to have be en stolen. The inc lusion of the word “ scheme ” at various points i n the indictment mere ly put defe ndant on notice that the g overnme nt’s theory was that his various I TSP offenses we re pa rt of a pattern of misconduc t. Thus, defe ndant’s argument that the indictment charg ed somethingother than I TSP i s without merit. W e have considere d the def

endant’ s remainingarguments in support of his appea ls in Nos. 07-5363-cr and 07 -5 55 1- c r a

nd c on c lud e that th e y

arewi tho ut m e ri t. Up o nd u e c o n s i d e r at i o n , i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED that defe ndant’s motions in 09-3135-pr are DENIED and

theor de r o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED , and in 07-5363-c r and 07- 5551- c r, theNo ve mbe r 1 6, 20 07 or de r o f t he Di stric t Co ur

t is RE VE RSE D to the extent that itdenied dis mis sa l of

Counts 14 and

15 , a nd is AF F IRM ED in a ll o the r r e sp e c ts, and thi s c a se is REMAND ED fo r r es en t en ci n g.

FOR THECOURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk By :_______________________________