The following excerpt is from Gane v. United States, 13-1166-cr, 13-1195-cr, 13-214-cr (2nd Cir. 2014):
4. "A jury instruction is erroneous if it misleads the jury as to the correct legal standard or does not adequately inform the jury on the law." United States v. Males, 459 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). We review jury instructions in their entirety, rather than in isolation. Id. Considered in their entirety, the instructions were not misleading with respect to the appropriate legal standard. Additionally, the absence of contemporaneous objection from defense counsel further suggests that when the "challenged language" was heard in the "context of the charge as a whole rather than in artificial isolation," it was not misleading or confusing. United States v. Carr, 880 F.2d 1550, 1555 (2d Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Page 5
5. We review sentences imposed by the district court for "reasonableness, which is akin to review for abuse of discretion, under which we consider whether the sentencing judge exceeded the bounds of allowable discretion, committed an error of law in the course of exercising discretion, or made a clearly erroneous finding of fact." United States v. Corsey, 723 F.3d 366, 374 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.