Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Charles NOVAK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-06
Citations: 188 F. App'x 9
Docket Number: No. 05-0108-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Charles NOVAK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 188
Pages: 9–10

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Charles NOVAK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-0108-cr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 6, 2006.
Diarmuid White, White & White, New York, NY, for Appellant.
Charles S. Kleinberg, (Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, on the brief; Peter A. Norling, of counsel), Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.
Present: SONIA SOTOMAYOR, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges, RICHARD K. EATON, Judge.
The Honorable Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
By published opinion dated April 3, 2006, we affirmed Novak's convictions for unlawful receipt of labor payments and for the RICO conspiracy and substantive RICO violations. United States v. Novak, 448 F.3d 150, 156, 162 (2d Cir.2006). We also reversed Novak's convictions for mail fraud and for making false statements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Id. at 159, 162. Finally, we ordered supplemental briefing on the impact of our reversals on Novak's convictions for money laundering, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and "The No-Show Jobs Conspiracy." Id. at 162. By letter dated May 2, 2006, Novak conceded that our reversals have no effect on his other convictions, obviating any need for further consideration of Novak's appeal.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in our earlier opinion, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part, and the case is REMANDED for resentencing pursuant to United States v. Fagans, 406 F.3d 138, 140 (2d Cir.2005). We also VACATE the mandate that was erroneously issued on July 6, 2006, and direct the clerk's office to issue a new mandate, in due course, consistent with this order.