Mandate of USCA (Certified Copy) as to Adedayo Ilori; 130 Notice of Appeal — USA v. Chancy et al. (Dkt. 137, S.D.N.Y.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · No. 1:20-cr-00378-LJL · Doc. 137 · 2023-08-25 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

S.D.N.Y. – N.Y.C.
20-cr-378
Liman, J.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT 
_________________ 
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, 
in the City of New York, on the 4th day of August, two thousand twenty-three. 
Present: 
Steven J. Menashi, 
Myrna Pérez, 
Maria Araújo Kahn, 
Circuit Judges. 
United States of America, 
Appellee, 
v. 
22-673 
Herode Chancy, Michael Albarella, 
Defendants, 
Adedayo Ilori, 
Defendant-Appellant. 
Elizabeth M. Johnson, counsel for Appellant, moves for permission to withdraw as counsel 
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and the Government moves to dismiss the 
appeal as barred by an appeal waiver, or in the alternative, for summary affirmance.  Upon due 
consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the Anders motion is DENIED; the motion to dismiss 
is GRANTED with respect to Appellant’s appeal of his terms of imprisonment and supervised 
release, forfeiture, and special assessment; and the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED 
IN PART with respect to the judgment of conviction and all conditions of supervised release except 
for the mandatory drug-testing condition, for which it is DENIED IN PART. 
Our independent review of the record, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), reveals that the 
district court orally pronounced a drug-testing condition of supervised release that: (1) Probation 
MANDATE
MANDATE ISSUED ON 08/25/2023
Case 22-673, Document 92, 08/25/2023, 3561150, Page1 of 2
Aug 25 2023
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL     Document 137     Filed 08/25/23     Page 1 of 2

2 
had recommended against imposing because Appellant had no substance-abuse history; and (2) 
was then marked as suspended in the written judgment, which contradicted the oral pronouncement 
but adopted Probation’s recommendation verbatim.  Because the drug testing condition was 
orally pronounced at sentencing, it is a part of Appellant’s sentence.  See United States v. Rosario, 
386 F.3d 166, 168 (2d Cir. 2004).  On this record, however, we are left with the firm conviction 
that the district court mistakenly included the condition as part of its oral pronouncement of the 
sentence.  
Accordingly, the judgment is VACATED in part, and the matter is REMANDED to the district 
court for the limited purpose of striking the drug-testing condition from the judgment.   
Furthermore, because the second part of Appellant’s appendix contains sensitive information that 
should not have been filed unredacted on the public docket, see Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(5); Fed. R. 
Crim. P. 49.1(a), the Clerk of the Court is respectfully ordered to seal docket entry 27 from public 
view. 
FOR THE COURT: 
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 
Case 22-673, Document 92, 08/25/2023, 3561150, Page2 of 2
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL     Document 137     Filed 08/25/23     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nysd.540905.137.0.pdf

Size

807,774 bytes

SHA-256

55f2f5fac7e537f6448a7fd1ba930d2e6c17a740afb9bca4e494d57e7a342647

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nysd.540905.137.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)