United States v. Middendorf
1:18-cr-00036-JPO
S.D.N.Y.Jan 16, 2024Background
- David Britt was convicted in 2020 in the Southern District of New York after pleading guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349.
- As a non-citizen, Britt’s conviction was considered an aggravated felony, leading to a judicial order of removal from the U.S.
- Post-conviction, the Second Circuit clarified in United States v. Blaszczak that misuse of intangible regulatory information does not meet wire fraud’s “property” requirement.
- The indictments against Britt’s codefendants were dismissed on this basis.
- Britt sought to vacate his conviction via writ of coram nobis, arguing the original conviction was constitutionally tainted.
- The United States consented to Britt’s request, and Britt remains outside of U.S. custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Britt’s wire fraud conviction was valid post-Blaszczak | Conviction constitutionally defective; relied on intangible regulatory info that isn’t property. | No contrary argument; government conceded error. | Conviction vacated. |
| Whether circumstances required writ of coram nobis | Britt faces ongoing collateral consequences and is not in custody; relief needed for justice. | No opposition, government consents. | Writ of coram nobis granted. |
| Whether Britt’s Order of Removal should stand | Removal based on tainted conviction; should be vacated. | No opposition, government consents. | Removal order vacated. |
| Timing and appropriateness of seeking relief | Prompt petition after change in law and government action in codefendants’ cases. | No opposition, government consents. | Relief timely and appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Blaszczak, 56 F.4th 230 (2d Cir. 2022) (clarified intangible regulatory info is not 'property' for wire fraud)
- United States v. Liguori, 438 F.2d 663 (2d Cir. 1971) (judgment tainted if property element not met)
- Kovacs v. United States, 744 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2014) (writ of coram nobis appropriate when compelling circumstances require it)
- Edwards v. United States, 564 F.2d 652 (2d Cir. 1977) (outlining standards for granting coram nobis)
