Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

` I
. l , ·,_Case 3:00-cr-002eS-JCITI Document 1721 Filed 02/14/20056 EWR]
IM O
_ _ J, . .‘_~
‘ A O0], C K Q Qég
pg a A it e¤»~~“ ·“
7/C? U,
ZHU5 :
FEB I LI ID STATES COURT OF APPEALS
U•SmgLS*,l[§`{/CT COUMFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
EN' CT i SUMMARY ORDER
!
THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER I
AND MAY NOT BE CITED JAS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY
OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY
OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATEDCASE, OR
IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. y
At a stated tenn of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the I
Thurfood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
ZS} day of js , two thousand and five.
Swm
w PRESENT: F I F,,fg{%Â¥P.rQi_
HON. CHESTER J. STRAUB, 0 % ;
. ‘° - ;
HON. ROBERT A . KATZMANN, ti JAH 25 2005 i
- Circuit Judges, and Is, *4,* I I
HON. RICHARD K. EATON, "`c·O‘*¤··r,,,. .
Judge} ' * · · *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellant,
v. SUMMARY ORDER
No. 03-1561-cr
CEDRIC BURDEN,
Defendcmt—Appellee. .
Appearing for Appellant: Brian E. Spears, Assistant United States Attorney for the i
District of Connecticut (Kevin J. O’Connor, United States
Attorney, on the brief; William J. Nardini, Assistant United I
States Attorney, of counsel), New Haven, CT |
'The Honorable Richard K. Eaton, Judge, United States Court of Intemational Trade,
sitting by designation.

·· x 04* "

-7;..4.- ........a.,I...........-- .- i.`_i.`_i f ·*·‘ a
r___ _ ` ’'ii ‘ *a**‘*·a***#*=e#e>=
r -——-........
pppp ‘’FJ

, 0% 3-00 cr/00263 JCH Document 1721 Filed O2/14/2005 Pa 2
. t. . ge of 3
· _ we I
United States v. Burden
No. O3-1561-or ·
Page 2 . `
Appearing for Defendant-Appellee: Salvatore J. Petrella, Cromwell, CT I _
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Janet C. Hall,
Judge).
AFTER ARGUMENT AND UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is hereby .
AFFIRMED. .
The United States of America appeals from the District Court’s granting of the
i Defendant—Appellee Cedric Burden’s motion for new trial on July 28, 2003. The District Court
granted the motion for new trial based on the lack of sufficient evidence to support a finding that I
Cedric Burden was a member ofthe racketeering enterprise. The District Court also noted that
its instruction regarding membershipin the racketeering enterprise "was not of as much i
assistance to the jury as it could have been,” though the District Court did not cite such as an
independent basis for its grant of a new trial. The government claims that the District Court
exceeded its discretion in disregarding certain evidence concerning the defendant’s membership
in the racketeering enterprise and in iinding its jury instruction regarding membership to be I
"plainly erroneous? _ I E
A district court may grant a motion for new trial where "letting a guilty verdict stand -
would be a manifest injustice." United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir. 2001)
(citing United States v. Sanchez, 969 F.2d 1409, 1414 (2d Cir. 1992)); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 33
("[T]he court may grant a new trial to [a] defendant if the interests of justice so require.”). We

l
` * · 1 ~ " Case 3:00-cr-00263-JCIj»| Document 1721 Filed W1 4/2005 Page 3 of 3
United States v. Burden
N0. 03-1561-cr F
Page 3 I
review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Autuori, 212 F.3d 105, 133 (2d Cir. 2000). I
A review of the record reveals the District Court examined the totality of the case, rather I
than engaging in an "exceeding narrow and incomplete review of the facts," as the government ·
contends. See Ferguson, 246 F.3d at 136 (finding no abuse of discretion where district court I
examined "the totality of the case"). Furthermore, the District Court did not exceed the bounds I
I of its allowable discretion when it concluded that the record lacked "satisfactory and sufficient I
evidence" that Cedric Burden was a member of the racketeering enterprise. See id. at 134. ,
F
Moreover, the District Court did not cite its jury instruction as an independent basis for its grant
of a new trial, but merely noted that it carried some weight in the court’s "manifest injustice” ` I
calculus. In doing so, the District Court also did not exceed the bounds of its allowable
discretion in finding that its jury instruction may have caused some confusion.
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court is hereby i
AFFIRMED. _
- FOR THE COURT:
ROSEANN B. MACKECHNIE, CLERK g
BY: DATE: I
E
E
i A rant: l
Roseann B . Mac , (;Lg;jir< I
loy*_________ I I