Source: http://blog.federaldefendersny.org/author/darrell/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 15:56:51+00:00

Document:
In United States v. Jamahl Leonard, No. 15-2232-cr (Dec. 14, 2016) (Circuit Judges: Raggi, Chin, Droney), the Circuit, in a published opinion, vacates a district court’s ruling that the defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and remands for further proceedings. But it also holds that the defendant cannot receive a sentence reduction to the extent he was seeking.
Note, this is a follow up on the third of three opinions issued yesterday that we blogged about; see original teaser post here.
Hobbs Act robbery (the interstate commerce element); Rule 16 violation (late disclosure of defendant’s statement); defense counsel’s summation comment (case agent is an interested witness); sequestration of a witness (the case agent).
United States v. Hisan Lee, et al., Nos.11-2539; 11-2543; 11-2834; 11-4068 (Aug. 24, 2016) (Circuit Judges: Cabranes, Pooler, and Lynch).
United States v. Jiamez-Dolores, et al., No. 14-1840(L), 14-1842 (CON) (Circuit Judges: Hall, Lynch, Chin).
In addition to today’s decision in Elvin Hill, the Circuit also issued this Opinion in United States v. Jiamez-Dolores, et al.
Incomplete transcript of the guilty plea. Here, only a partial transcript of the Rule 11 colloquy was produced by the court reporter. “Both the government and the defendant agree[d] that a considerable portion of the transcript of the Rule 11 proceedings is unavailable despite their diligent efforts to locate it.” Op. at 3. Missing from the transcript were the parts of the Rule 11 proceeding that would have concerned inquiries about the defendant’s competence, his knowing waiver of various trial and constitutional rights, and his understanding of the nature of the charges.
Today there is a short opinion discussing the meaning of “aggravated felony” in the context of a removal proceeding. And there is a summary order in a criminal case.
No criminal cases were decided by the Circuit today.
But there is an interesting civil case resulting from the plaintiff’s arrest by NYPD detectives, on charges that were later dismissed. The plaintiff brought a civil suit against the defendants — several named NYPD detectives — under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 .
The case is Figueroa v. Mazza et al., No. 14-4116-cv (2d Cir. June 3, 2016) (Circuit Judges: Kearse, Walker, and Cabranes; Judge Kearse dissents from part of the opinion).
In the plaintiff’s civil suit under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 and state law, he raised the following claims against the detectives: (1) false arrest, (2) excessive force, (3) assault, (4) failure to intervene (because the detectives did not stop an unidentified police officer from beating him as he sat in a police car), and (5) unlawful entry.

References: v. 
 § 3582
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.