United States v. Zografidis

16-325-cr(L) United States v. Zografidis, et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “Summary Order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of April, two thousand eighteen. Present: ROBERT D. SACK, PETER W. HALL, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY. Circuit Judges. United States of America, Appellee, v. 16-325-cr; 16-2306-cr Demetrios Papadakos, AKA “Jimmy the Greek”, AKA “Jimmy”; David Solano, AKA “Bobby”, AKA “Papi”; Domenick Ribustello, AKA “Dom”, AKA “D”; George Tkaczyk, Jr., AKA “Georgie”; Vasiliki Papadakos, AKA “Vaso”; John Yerinides; Ioannis Papachristou, AKA “Johnny”; Dimitrios Karpipdis; Savvas Giannoglou, AKA “Steve”; Carlos Hendricks, AKA “Carlito”; James Lyons; Qasim Seyal; Efstrati Papadakos, AKA “Steve”; Julio Brinez, AKA “Diesel”, AKA “D”, Defendants, Konstantinos Zografidis, AKA “Gus”, AKA “Poncho”; Alfred Catino, AKA “the Old Man”, AKA “Anthony Vitacco”, AKA “Frank Ross”, AKA “Alphonse Catino”, AKA “Chico”, AKA “Frank Russo”, AKA “Herbie”, Defendants-Appellants. For Appellee: VANESSA RICHARDS (Marc H. Silverman, of counsel, on the brief), for John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT. For Defendant-Appellant Zografidis: WILLIAM T. KOCH, JR., Law office of William T. Koch, Jr., Old Lyme, CT. For Defendant-Appellant Catino: BENJAMIN M. DANIELS (James I. Glasser, on the brief), Wiggin and Dana LLP, New Haven, CT. Appeal from final judgment entered January 29, 2016 and June 21, 2016, in the District of Connecticut (Meyer, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the district court’s decisions and judgments are AFFIRMED. Konstantinos Zografidis and Alfred Catino appeal from their convictions arising out of a large drug trafficking operation. Specifically, they appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to suppress evidence gained through wiretap warrants, the district court’s denial of their motion for a Franks hearing, the district court’s denial of Zografidis’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and the district court’s denial of Zografidis’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his home. We 2 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, the arguments presented on appeal, and the district court’s rulings which we reference only to explain our decision. Zografidis and Catino first assert that the district court erred by denying their motions to suppress evidence gained through wiretap warrants because those warrants failed to articulate a full and complete statement of necessity. “In reviewing a ruling on a motion ...

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