United States v. Sampson


17‐343‐cr United States v. Sampson UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2017 (Argued: December 7, 2017 Decided: August 6, 2018) No. 17‐343‐cr –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, ‐v.‐ JOHN SAMPSON, Defendant‐Appellant. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Before: CABRANES, LIVINGSTON, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges. Defendant‐Appellant John Sampson (“Sampson”) appeals from a January 27, 2017 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, C.J.), following a jury verdict finding him guilty of obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal agents. On appeal, Sampson argues that: (1) the government prosecuted him improperly for a “witness‐ tampering” offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a); (2) the district court committed reversible error in its jury instruction concerning whether he “willfully caus[ed]” an obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b); (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1 § 1001(a)(2); (4) the district court committed reversible error (and violated Sampson’s Confrontation Clause rights) by preventing Sampson from introducing an FBI agent’s notes into evidence, and by sustaining the prosecution’s objection to a question that Sampson’s counsel asked at trial; (5) the district court unfairly prejudiced Sampson by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of bribes that he allegedly received; and (6) the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable. We have examined each of Sampson’s arguments and conclude that none of them have merit. The district court’s judgment of conviction is therefore AFFIRMED. FOR DEFENDANT‐APPELLANT: NATHANIEL H. AKERMAN (Joshua Colangelo‐Bryan, on the brief), Dorsey & Whitney, New York, NY. FOR APPELLEE: PAUL TUCHMANN, Assistant United States Attorney (David C. James, Alexander A. Solomon, and Marisa M. Seifan, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY. DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge: On July 24, 2015, following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, C.J.), Defendant‐Appellant John Sampson (“Sampson”) was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a), and two counts of making false statements to federal agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). The district court later sentenced Sampson principally to five years of imprisonment. On appeal, 2 Sampson challenges the judgment on numerous grounds. We conclude that none of Sampson’s arguments is meritorious. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment of conviction. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background1 Sampson began serving in the New York State Senate in 1997, representing the 19th Senate District in Brooklyn. Until his expulsion from the Senate in 2015, Sampson was seen as a political “powerhouse.” See Alan Feuer, John Sampson, Once a State Senate Powerhouse, Sentenced to Prison, N.Y. Times, Jan. 19, 2017, at A20. He served as leader of the Democratic Conference of the Senate from June 2009 to December 2012, and Minority Leader of the Senate from January 2011 to December 2012. Sampson ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals