HC-Logo

Recent News

Hamilton Clarke, LLP Secures Appellate Victory at the Second Circuit

Contact Hamilton Clarke, LLP Today!

By Hamilton Clarke, LLP

May 27, 2026

Publications & Decisions Appellate Victory · Federal Criminal Defense

Hamilton Clarke, LLP Secures Appellate Victory at the Second Circuit

United States v. Francis, No. 25-1817 | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | May 27, 2026 On May 27, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in United States v. Francis, No. 25-1817. Hamilton Clarke, LLP attorneys Lance A. Clarke and Ethan Van Buren represented the defendant-appellant and secured meaningful appellate victories before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Key Results

  • Waiver Challenge: Consecutive sentence issue preserved for full appellate review.
  • Supervised Release: Thirteen conditions vacated; matter remanded to the district court.
  • Government’s Motion: Dismissed in part; waiver held not to reach consecutive portion.
  • Result: Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part.

Background

Nazeem Francis was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York following a guilty plea to assaulting a federal corrections officer. The district court imposed a 168-month sentence, with 72 months running concurrently to an existing 240-month sentence from a separate attempted Hobbs Act robbery conviction — and 96 months running consecutively, creating an effective aggregate term of 336 months. Hamilton Clarke, LLP appealed. The appeal presented significant headwinds from the outset. Francis had entered a plea agreement containing an appellate waiver, and the Government moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the waiver barred review of the sentence in its entirety. The Second Circuit agreed that the waiver foreclosed challenges to the overall sentence — but held that it did not reach the consecutive portion, preserving that issue for full appellate review.

The Decision

I. The Appeal Waiver

Francis’s plea agreement contained an appellate waiver providing that he would not challenge his conviction or sentence if the court imposed a term of 210 months or below. The Second Circuit held that the waiver was enforceable and that it foreclosed Francis’s procedural and substantive challenges to the 168-month sentence. The Court did, however, draw a precise line. The waiver contained no language addressing the extent to which a sentence runs consecutively to another sentence. Relying on United States v. Stearns, 479 F.3d 175, 178 (2d Cir. 2007) — a case the defense raised in its opening brief — the Court held that it would not construe a narrowly framed waiver to bar challenges to the consecutive portion of the sentence. That ruling preserved the consecutive sentencing issue for full appellate review. The Court noted that the Government’s brief had not addressed Stearns at all, despite the defense’s prominent reliance on it.

II. Supervised Release Conditions — Vacatur and Remand

The defense also challenged the district court’s inclusion of thirteen discretionary conditions of supervised release in the written judgment, on the ground that those conditions were never orally pronounced at sentencing. The Government conceded the point. The Second Circuit vacated the conditions and remanded to the district court to consider reimposing them in the defendant’s presence, consistent with United States v. Maiorana, 153 F.4th 306 (2d Cir. 2025) (en banc).

III. The Merits of the Consecutive Sentence

On the merits of the consecutive sentencing challenge, the Court affirmed the district court. It found no procedural deficiency in the record and rejected the defense’s argument that the aggregate 336-month term constituted an effective upward variance, reasoning that the relevant question was whether it was substantively reasonable to impose 96 additional months for the assault on the corrections officer — a question it answered in the affirmative.

Context

Appeals of federal sentences face a deferential standard of review, and appellate waivers are presumptively enforceable under Second Circuit precedent. In that context, the Court’s rejection of the Government’s waiver motion — which preserved the consecutive sentencing challenge for full appellate review — and the vacatur and remand on supervised release conditions represent meaningful results for the defense. The matter returns to the district court for further proceedings. Lance A. Clarke and Ethan Van Buren represented the defendant-appellant at sentencing in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Hamilton Clarke, LLP is a New York-based litigation firm representing clients in state and federal courts across the country. To read the Court’s full decision, please see the Second Circuit’s Summary Order: United States v. Francis, No. 25-1817 (2d Cir. May 27, 2026).
Order Summary