92 F.4th 77
2d Cir.2024Background
- Azibo Aquart was convicted in federal district court of multiple counts arising from his participation in a violent drug trafficking enterprise, including VICAR murders, drug-related murders, and drug conspiracy.
- Initially sentenced to death for two murders, his convictions were largely affirmed by the Second Circuit, which vacated only the sentence because of two errors at the penalty phase and remanded for resentencing.
- On remand, the government withdrew pursuit of the death penalty, and Aquart was resentenced to three mandatory life sentences plus concurrent terms for other offenses.
- Aquart, with new counsel, submitted motions challenging his convictions on various grounds, including alleged defects in the indictments, jurisdiction, speedy trial violations, and double jeopardy.
- The district court, citing the mandate rule and law-of-the-case doctrine, denied most of Aquart’s motions, except resentencing one count under the Fair Sentencing Act.
- Aquart appealed, challenging the district court’s application of the mandate rule and law-of-the-case, as well as the imposition of sentences for both drug conspiracy and drug-related murders on double jeopardy grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Aquart's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandate Rule precludes new challenges to convictions | The issues were not addressed on initial appeal and can be raised on remand | Mandate rule forecloses relitigation of any issues that could have been brought in the first appeal | District court correctly applied the mandate rule; new challenges barred |
| Jurisdictional challenges to indictment | Indictment defects (predicate statutes, crack quantity) deprived court of jurisdiction | Any such defects are nonjurisdictional under Supreme Court precedent | No jurisdictional defect; mandate rule bars review |
| Intervening change in law (re: Davis/categorical approach) | Davis altered legal landscape, justifying relitigation of predicates for VICAR murder | No clear change in applicable law; categorical approach was not previously foreclosed | No intervening law change requiring exception from mandate rule |
| Double jeopardy—multiple punishments for conspiracy and predicate drug-related murders | Punishing for both conspiracy and predicate murder is a double jeopardy violation | Distinct statutory offenses, and Congress intended cumulative punishment | No double jeopardy; cumulative sentences allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aquart, 912 F.3d 1 (2d Cir. 2018) (prior decision affirming Aquart’s guilt and vacating his capital sentence for errors at sentencing)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (indictment defects are not jurisdictional)
- Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996) (double jeopardy bars multiple punishment in lesser-included/conspiracy contexts, but distinguished by this opinion)
- Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773 (1985) (legislative intent can allow punishment for predicate and compound offenses)
- Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (1983) (cumulative sentences authorized if clearly intended by legislature)