United States v. Abreu

── United States v. Abreu ── Case No.: 24-2917 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 18, 2026 Category: General 24-2917-cr United States v. Abreu UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 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 18th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, GERARD E. LYNCH, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. 24-2917-cr ANTONY ABREU, a/k/a Anthony, Defendant-Appellant, ZHE ZHANG, a/k/a Zack; QING MING YU, a/k/a Allen Yu; and YOU YOU, a/k/a Eddie, Defendants. __________________________________________ FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: SUSAN KELLMAN, Law Offices of Susan G. Kellman (Sarah Kunstler, Law Office of Sarah Kunstler, on the brief), Brooklyn, NY. FOR APPELLEE: ERIC SILVERBERG, Assistant United States Attorney (Saritha Komatireddy, Devon Lash, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Joseph Nocella, Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY. Appeal from the November 4, 2024, judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Amon, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED. Appellant Antony Abreu appeals from the judgment entered by the District Court after a jury convicted him of (1) murder-for-hire conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1958(a) and §3551, and (2) murder for hire (or aiding and abetting murder for hire) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1958(a), §2, and §3551. The District Court sentenced Abreu principally to a term of life in prison. Abreu contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on either count because the evidence at trial failed to establish that he entered into an agreement to receive something of pecuniary value in exchange for his role in the murder. He further asserts that the District Court erred in concluding that 18 U.S.C. §1958(a) mandates a sentence of life in prison. 2  We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. BACKGROUND The evidence at trial established that on February 12, 2019, Xin “Chris” Gu was shot and killed outside a Queens karaoke club by a man who got out of a white Honda that had been parked nearby for about two hours. Abreu was charged as the shooter, and his co-defendant Zhe Zhang was charged as the driver. The government alleged that Allen Yu, Chris Gu’s former employer, had ordered the murder of Chris Gu. Allen Yu asked his nephew, co-defendant You You, to recruit Zh