United States v. Sampson

Decision Date06 August 2018
Docket NumberAugust Term 2017,No. 17-343-cr,17-343-cr
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John SAMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

For Defendant-Appellant: Nathaniel H. Akerman (Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, on the brief ), Dorsey & Whitney, New York, NY.

For Appellee: Paul Tuchmann, Assistant United States Attorney (David C. James, Alexander A. Solomon, and Marisa M. Seifan, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief ), for Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.

Before: Cabranes, Livingston, and Carney, Circuit Judges.

Debra Ann Livingston, Circuit Judge:

On July 24, 2015, following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, C.J. ), Defendant-Appellant John Sampson ("Sampson") was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a), and two counts of making false statements to federal agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). The district court later sentenced Sampson principally to five years of imprisonment. On appeal, Sampson challenges the judgment on numerous grounds. We conclude that none of Sampson’s arguments is meritorious. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment of conviction.

I. Factual Background1

Sampson began serving in the New York State Senate in 1997, representing the 19th Senate District in Brooklyn. Until his expulsion from the Senate in 2015, Sampson was seen as a political "powerhouse." See Alan Feuer, John Sampson, Once a State Senate Powerhouse, Sentenced to Prison , N.Y. Times, Jan. 19, 2017, at A20. He served as leader of the Democratic Conference of the Senate from June 2009 to December 2012, and Minority Leader of the Senate from January 2011 to December 2012.

Sampson was also licensed to practice law in New York State. As described in more detail in this case’s companion appeal, United States v. Sampson , No. 15-2869-cr (2d Cir. 2018), Justices of the New York State Supreme Court periodically appointed Sampson to serve as a referee in foreclosure actions for properties located in Brooklyn. The government argued at trial that over time, Sampson embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from various foreclosure escrow accounts that he oversaw as a referee.

In July 2006, Sampson asked Edul Ahmad ("Ahmad"), a Queens businessman, to lend him $188,500 so that he could replace funds he had embezzled before the authorities could discover they were missing. Ahmad agreed to lend Sampson the money. Sampson failed to repay Ahmad. After realizing that Sampson would not repay the loan, Ahmad asked Sampson to use his position in the New York State Senate to provide Ahmad with special favors. Sampson subsequently intervened with New York State regulatory agencies conducting reviews of Ahmad’s business, lobbied for Ahmad to receive potentially lucrative brokerships from national financial institutions, and introduced legislation that would have benefited Ahmad as the owner of a minority-owned business.

In July 2011, Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") agents arrested Ahmad for mortgage fraud, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York ("the USAO") commenced its prosecution of Ahmad. After Ahmad was released on bail, he met with Sampson "multiple times." App’x at 109. Sampson told Ahmad that Sampson "had a friend that he had gone to school with" who worked in the USAO, "and that he would reach out to this individual and try to get some information as to the strength of [the USAO’s] case," including the names of individuals who might testify against Ahmad should Ahmad choose to go to trial. Id. at 110. The government argued to the jury that Sampson’s goal was to prevent Ahmad from pleading guilty to the charges, cooperating with the government, and disclosing Sampson’s crimes. Ahmad accepted Sampson’s offer to help him acquire names of potential witnesses.

Sampson contacted Samuel Noel ("Noel"), who, at the time, served as a supervisory paralegal at the USAO. Sampson provided Noel with the names of four potential witnesses in Ahmad’s case: Leesa Shapiro, Glenn Hirsch, Roger Khan ("Khan"), and Premaj Hansraj ("Hansraj"). Noel understood that Sampson was asking him to conduct an improper search of the USAO’s non-public database and determine who was planning to testify at Ahmad’s trial. Noel knew that it was a crime for him to provide Sampson with this non-public information.

Nonetheless, after speaking with Sampson, Noel used his government account to run the names of Ahmad, Sampson, and the relevant witnesses through the Public Access to Electronic Records ("PACER") database. Noel understood at the time that he was forbidden from using PACER for such non-work-related purposes. Next, Noel looked up the names of Ahmad, Sampson, and the relevant witnesses in the Legal Information Office Network System ("LIONS"), a nonpublic USAO database with confidential information.2 Noel found results for Ahmad, Khan, and Hansraj, but not for the others. Noel later told Sampson that he did not see his name or come across other relevant information in the LIONS database.

Noel also contacted two nonsupervisory USAO paralegals, one working on Ahmad’s case and the other working in the USAO’s public integrity section. During a closed-door meeting, Noel told the paralegal working on Ahmad’s case to inform him of information regarding the case, including if she learned that witnesses were speaking about Sampson. During another closed-door meeting in his office, Noel directed the paralegal working in the public integrity section to inform him if she came across any of the named witnesses mentioning Sampson. On November 22, 2011, Sampson assured Ahmad that Sampson was "on top of" Noel, and that Noel was "doing the best he can" to find out information on Ahmad’s case. Id. at 914.

Ahmad also informed Sampson that the FBI had approached Qayaam Farrouq ("Farrouq"), one of Ahmad’s co-conspirators in the mortgage fraud. Ahmad told Sampson that he was worried that Farrouq would cooperate with the government. Ahmad therefore suggested that Sampson provide Farrouq with an attorney who would betray attorney-client confidentiality and provide them with information about whether Farrouq would cooperate. Sampson arranged for an attorney to represent Farrouq, instructing Ahmad not to have contact with the attorney directly, but that Sampson himself would communicate with the attorney about Farrouq.

Sampson followed a similar tack after the government arrested Nazir Gurmohamed ("Gurmohamed"), one of Ahmad’s other co-conspirators. Sampson suggested that he and Ahmad obtain an attorney for Gurmohamed who would breach privilege and inform them if Gurmohamed began cooperating with the government. During the meeting with Ahmad at which this conversation took place, Sampson talked to Farrouq’s attorney on the phone and solicited information about Farrouq and Gurmohamed’s arraignments and bail hearings. As for obtaining a lawyer for Gurmohamed, Sampson instructed Ahmad to pay the attorney in cash so there would be no "money trail." Id. at 923. Later, Sampson sent Ahmad contact information for the attorney Ahmad was to retain for Gurmohamed.

Sampson also attempted to hire a private investigator, Warren Flagg ("Flagg"), a former FBI agent who worked with the USAO while in that role. Sampson hoped that Flagg could exploit his ties with the USAO to extract information regarding the case against Ahmad. During a meeting, Flagg told Ahmad that it would be illegal for him to secure confidential information about the USAO’s potential cooperating witnesses. See id. at 1010 ("[I]f I call up a buddy of mine and say, oh, you know this case? First of all, that’s tampering."). Nevertheless, Flagg suggested that Ahmad compile a list of possible cooperating witnesses for Flagg to investigate. Sampson repeatedly urged Ahmad to do so. At the same time, Sampson stated that Ahmad did not need to involve his criminal counsel in any of Flagg’s potential work.

Despite Sampson’s efforts, Ahmad began to cooperate with the government in November 2011. Sampson and Ahmad met again in February 2012. In preparation for the meeting, pursuant to instructions from law enforcement, Ahmad copied a page from his check register that showed the $188,500 he had transferred to Sampson. During the meeting, Ahmad showed Sampson the copy, informed him that it was responsive to a government subpoena, and asked what he should do. Sampson instructed Ahmad not to produce the check register and to lie to the government about its—and the loan’s—existence. Sampson then took the copy from Ahmad; he did not return it.

On July 27, 2012, two FBI agents—Ken Hosey ("Agent Hosey") and Erin Zacher ("Agent Zacher")—interviewed Sampson and questioned him about the check register page. Sampson claimed not to recall anything about the $188,500 payment that Ahmad had provided him. Agent Hosey then showed Sampson a photocopy of Ahmad’s check register page. Sampson told Hosey that the document "didn’t ring a bell" and that "he didn’t have a recollection from it." Id. at 780. He suggested, however, that he might recall if he checked his files or received more information.

In the same interview, the agents questioned Sampson about his ownership interest in a Brooklyn liquor store. Sampson had previously failed to disclose this interest when submitting a liquor license application to the New York State Liquor Authority. Responding to FBI questioning, however, Sampson admitted he did have the ownership interest. He claimed that his four business partners in the store awarded him the interest as payment for performing certain legal work, but Sampson failed to identify what work he did. He also denied asking one of his Senate staffers to help with a matter related to the store.

At the conclusion of the interview, Hosey informed Sampson that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • United States v. Montgomery
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 28, 2021
    ...that [the defendant's] actions are likely to affect the judicial proceeding" (quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Sampson , 898 F.3d 287, 300 (2d Cir. 2018) (noting that Section 1512 "broadly criminalizes various forms of witness tampering"); and United States v. Burge , 711 F.3d 80......
  • United States v. Montgomery
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 28, 2021
    ...that [the defendant's] actions are likely to affect the judicial proceeding” (quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 300 (2d Cir. 2018) (noting that Section 1512 “broadly criminalizes various forms of witness tampering”); and United States v. Burge, 711 F.3d 803,......
  • United States v. Sampson, 15-2869-cr
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • August 6, 2018
    ......-------- Notes: 1 In this case’s companion appeal, United States v. Sampson , No. 17-343-cr, Sampson appeals from a judgment entered after a jury trial at which Sampson was found guilty of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a), and two counts of making false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). This instant appeal by the government is concerned ......
  • United States v. McHugh
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • May 2, 2022
    ...have uniformly construed “corruptly” in § 1503(a) as a mens rea term requiring specific intent. See, e.g., United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 299 (2d Cir. 2018) (“The mens rea [in § 1503(a)'s omnibus clause] is acting ‘corruptly'-that is, with ‘a specific intent to obstruct a federal j......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...to any federal agency and (2) the defendant knew that such claim was false, f‌ictitious, or fraudulent.”), with United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 305 n.13 (2d Cir. 2018) (“To secure a conviction under [18 U.S.C. § 1001], the 895 can be prosecuted under § 1001 or § 287, among other sta......
  • Evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • May 5, 2022
    ...otherwise inadmissible hearsay to show that he was a “good guy” trying to make the best out of a bad situation. United States v. Sampson , 898 F.3d 287, 311 (2d Cir. 2019). FBI agent’s interview notes were hearsay that did not fit within any exception to hearsay rule, and were thus inadmiss......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT