United States v. Riglioni, 694 F. App'x 14

In 2009 a confidential informant made three DEA-supervised, recorded purchases of ~2 ounces of crack each from a seller known only as “BJ” near two clothing stores owned by Barkel Nelson in Schenectady.
At trial the primary contested issue was identity: whether Nelson was “BJ.” The informant identified Nelson; an agent testified he saw Nelson enter the informant’s car for the third transaction.
A DEA agent, without defense objection on direct, testified as a lay witness that Nelson’s voice matched the recorded seller’s voice based on a post-arrest conversation; on redirect the agent again testified over objection that Nelson met his “expectations.”
A jury convicted Nelson of three counts of possession with intent to distribute crack; after multiple continuances, the district court sentenced him to 70 months’ imprisonment and eight years’ supervised release.
On appeal Nelson challenged (1) admission of the agent’s lay voice-identification testimony, and (2) the reasonableness of the eight-year supervised-release term; the Government conceded a Guidelines miscalculation for supervised release.
The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction, held the voice-identification testimony admissible under Rules 701 and 901(b)(5), vacated the supervised-release term, and remanded for resentencing as to supervised release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't)	Defendant's Argument (Nelson)	Held
Admissibility of agent’s lay voice-identification	Agent’s opinion was proper lay testimony helpful to the jury, based on perception and not expert analysis	Agent’s voice ID required expert/scientific foundation or was unhelpful and should be excluded	Admitted: lay opinion permitted under Fed. R. Evid. 701 and voice ID allowed under Rule 901(b)(5)
Standard of review for evidentiary error	(Gov’t argued) plain-error review because no contemporaneous objection on direct	(Nelson argued) objection preserved on redirect so abuse-of-discretion review applies	Court found no need to decide standard; no reversible error under either standard
Calculation of Guidelines for supervised release	Guidelines range should be 4–5 years (statutory minimum 4, Guidelines max 5); district court miscalculated	Eight-year supervised release exceeded correct Guidelines top; challenged as procedurally unreasonable	Miscalculation was plain error affecting substantial rights; supervised-release term vacated and remanded for resentencing
Whether miscalculation prejudiced defendant	Government conceded miscalculation and prejudice; remand appropriate	Nelson argued Guidelines treated as presumptive; sentence unreasonable	Court applied Molina-Martinez principle: reliance on incorrect range likely affected sentence; remand ordered

United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir.) (aural voice identification does not generally require expert testimony)
United States v. Bonanno, 487 F.2d 654 (2d Cir.) (opinion testimony identifying voice on tape admissible if identifier previously heard voice)
United States v. Natal, 849 F.3d 530 (2d Cir.) (lay opinion admissible when based on everyday reasoning and perception)
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. en banc) (standards for procedural and substantive sentence review)
United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir.) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing objections)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (U.S.) (applying incorrect Guidelines range usually shows a reasonable probability of affecting substantial rights)
United States v. Groysman, 766 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.) (plain-error framework elements)