History
  • No items yet
midpage
United States v. Middendorf
1:18-cr-00036-JPO
S.D.N.Y.
Jan 16, 2024
Read the full case

Background

  • 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)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Middendorf
Court Name: District Court, S.D. New York
Date Published: Jan 16, 2024
Docket Number: 1:18-cr-00036-JPO
Court Abbreviation: S.D.N.Y.