On June 28, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut announced an indictment charging sixteen individuals with a variety of federal crimes relating to the distribution of narcotics and the possession of firearms. The charges are extremely serious and carry lengthy potential jail sentences.
The indictment charges the following individuals:
LUIS FELICIANO, a.k.a. “Louminaty,” 38, of East Hartford
Following her conviction at trial in the Southern District of New York for various federal charges relating to the sex trafficking of minors, disgraced Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell received a sentence of 20 years in prison. She will get credit towards that sentence for the time she has already spent in prison, and assuming she receives the maximum amount of good time credit for her behavior in custody, she will probably only serve about 85% of that sentence, or 17 years.
The question on everyone’s mind has been whether Ms. Maxwell will finally disclose the names of the other purportedly rich and powerful celebrities who engaged in illicit conduct with minors and Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Maxwell has steadfastly refused to do that, even after Epstein’s death (to the surprise of some). Ms. Maxwell initially denied being knowingly involved in any criminal conduct, and her statement at sentencing was hardly an apology, either.
Ms. Maxwell may also have a legitimate ground for an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. After the verdict, a juror disclosed that they had not told the Court during jury selection about having been a victim of a sexual assault. Judge Nathan (the trial judge) denied a motion for a new trial on that basis, and Maxwell will almost certainly pursue that argument on appeal.
Recently, Matthew Galluzzo, an experienced federal criminal defense attorney and criminal appellate lawyer, was appointed by a federal court to represent an individual previously sentenced to 48 years in prison in connection with two armed robberies in the 1990s. The client, Leonard Johnson, had been so harshly penalized in part because of the now outdated laws relating to the “stacking” of federal firearm sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). Mr. Johnson filed a pro se motion for reconsideration under 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c), and Mr. Galluzzo was appointed to supplement that appeal and improve upon it with his legal expertise.
Previously, judges were required to impose 25-year consecutive sentences on convictions for 924(c) firearm charges when the defendants had previous convictions for 924(c). However, the problem with this law is that a person who committed two violations of 924(c) would be sentenced to a 25-year mandatory minimum consecutive sentence, even if they committed that second 924(c) violation before being convicted of the first 924(c). That is precisely what happened to Mr. Johnson: he was arrested in North Carolina for a bank robbery with a firearm, and then charged shortly thereafter with another robbery with a firearm in New York. Even though he had not yet been convicted of a 924(c) charge when he committed the robbery in New York, he got the mandatory minimum consecutive 25-year sentence because the other 924(c) crime happened in North Carolina (and he was convicted in that case) before being sentenced in New York.
Congress clarified this issue recently such that in order for the mandatory consecutive 25-year sentence to apply, the first conviction for 924(c) had to have been final before the commission of the second 924(c) crime. Judges then generally have discretion to modify sentences imposed under the old scheme. United States v. Ballard, 2021 WL 3285009, at *4-*5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2021); 18 U.S.C. Section 3582. Mr. Galluzzo and Mr. Johnson argued that Mr. Johnson had undergone significant rehabilitation, that he suffered from a variety of health ailments, and that the requested sentence modification still constituted sufficient punishment for his offenses, in which no one was injured.
Extradition is the process by which a person wanted for (or convicted of) a crime in another country is seized by local law enforcement and delivered to the nation seeking to prosecute. The United States has extradition treaties with most of the other nations of the world. See 18 U.S.C. 3181. Each of these treaties is unique, however. So, before determining whether a person on American soil can or will be apprehended and extradited, the applicable treaty must be read and examined.
Generally speaking, if a foreign nation suspects that a person it wants to prosecute is currently on American soil, it will send a request for an arrest of that person to American federal law enforcement. If the U.S. government determines that its treaty with the other nation requires it to deliver to that nation a person currently on American soil, an American federal prosecutor will seek an arrest warrant and then an extradition certification for that person.
Once the person is in custody, the accused can attempt to prevent the transfer to the requesting nation. As a practical matter, it is normally difficult to succeed in preventing the transfer. The trial of the person’s guilt or innocence is not had on American soil – that happens in the requesting nation. In deciding whether to certify an extradition, an American court’s review is limited to determining: (1) whether the court has jurisdiction; (2) whether the offense charged is covered by the applicable treaty; (3) whether that treaty is in force; and (4) whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause for the charges. 31 U.S.C. § 3184.
After a long trial followed by over forty hours of jury deliberations, Ghislaine Maxwell finally stands convicted of several federal charges relating to the sexual abuse of minors. Ms. Maxwell somewhat curiously chose not to testify in her own defense, and she now faces a sentence of up to 65 years in federal prison. Ms. Maxwell’s fight is far from over, but ultimately it will almost certainly lead to one final choice: cooperate with the government or die in prison.
After a federal conviction – by guilty plea or by jury verdict – the defendant is interviewed by a specialized officer from the U.S. Department of Probation. These officers typically have backgrounds in social work, and it is their responsibility to prepare a biography – or presentence report – for the court. The judge uses this presentence report at sentencing to understand the defendant’s life, background, and circumstances. (The Bureau of Prisons also uses this report in determining the defendant’s prison designation.) The preparation of a report can easily take two months or more, as the interview has to be scheduled, a draft report prepared, edits and objections made by both the defense and the prosecution, and a final draft with a sentencing recommendation submitted to the sentencing court.
Following the preparation of the presentence report, both the prosecution and defense prepare sentencing memoranda for the judge. Both sides make arguments about the proper application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the sentencing factors pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Defense lawyers usually submit character letters from friends and family of the defendant, and sometimes the defendant also submits his/her own letter of remorse. Eventually, the sentencing court then holds a sentencing hearing at which both sides make oral arguments about the sentence and the court pronounces its decision. That sentencing hearing could be anywhere from 4 to 6 months after the conviction, though it could take even longer.
Platinum selling rap artist Fetty Wap (real name Willie Junior Maxwell II) was arrested and arraigned on October 29 pursuant to a federal indictment charging him and five other men with Conspiracy to Distribute Narcotics (the other five men were also charged with Use of Firearms in Connection with a Drug Crime). The charges are incredibly serious and Fetty Wap faces very significant jail time.
According to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, the rapper and five other men trafficked in significant quantities of heroin, cocaine, and the especially-dangerous drug, fentanyl. The defendants (including Anthony Leonardi, Robert Leonardi, Brian Sullivan, Anthony Syntje, and Kavaughn Wiggins) have all been arrested and detained pending trial. Prosecutors claim to have recovered at least 16 kilograms of cocaine, 2 kilograms of heroin, and fentanyl, though it is certain that they will allege that the group is responsible for far more than that. Indeed, the press release describes the amount of drugs trafficked by the crew as “massive”.
Fetty Wap is unlikely to be released on bail pending trial, though it may be possible given his likely financial resources. However, in federal narcotics cases of this size and scale, the presumption for judges is that a defendant should be detained pending trial. Fetty Wap would have to convincingly demonstrate that he does not pose a risk to the public, and that he would not flee if released on bond. Given his resources (and possible ability to live abroad), the amount of prison time that he is potentially facing, the fact that his codefendants are indicted for using firearms, and the fact that he allegedly trafficked in fentanyl, which is notorious for causing fatal overdoses, it seems unlikely that he will be bailed out pending trial.
It was recently announced by the New York Attorney General’s Office that disgraced former New York governor Andrew Cuomo would be criminally prosecuted for an alleged groping of a female staffer at the governor’s mansion in Albany.
Specifically, Cuomo will be charged with one count of Forcible Touching, in violation of Penal Law Section 130.52.* That code makes it a class A misdemeanor to intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose:
Today, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut announced the arrest of Democratic State Representative Michael DiMassa for allegedly defrauding over $600,000 from the city of West Haven. The federal wire fraud charges carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
According to a press release from the prosecutor, Mr. DiMassa supposedly formed an LLC with another person and used that LLC to bill the City of West Haven for consulting services that were not in fact provided. Allegedly, Mr. DiMassa made withdrawals from the LLC at about the same time he made large chip purchases at Mohegan Sun casino. One might suspect the government to argue that Mr. DiMassa’s fraud was the result of a gambling addiction.
Of course, nothing has been proven as of yet. But if Mr. DiMassa is in fact convicted of wire fraud for allegedly stealing $600,000, he is likely looking at a Federal Sentencing Guidelines range of between 33 and 57 months. In federal cases, crimes have minimum and maximum penalties, but judges use an advisory system called the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to narrow down the sentencing range. Those guidelines give defendants and attorneys an idea of what to expect at sentencing, but are nevertheless just approximations. This table provides the guidance.
Yesterday, the Department of Justice announced that its U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan (Southern District of New York) had filed an indictment charging 18 former NBA players and 1 of their spouses with federal crimes relating to the defrauding of the NBA players’ association HRA (health reimbursement account). In short, the alleged mastermind of the crime, Terrence Williams, allegedly recruited former players into his scheme. They allegedly created fake invoices for chiropractic, medical, and dental services that they did not in fact receive, and then submitted those invoices to the HRA for reimbursement for those phony services. The defendants are charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (wire fraud) and 18 U.S.C. § 1347 (health care fraud), and Terrence Williams also faces a charge of identity theft for bizarrely impersonating a health care plan administrator to try to shake down another player for his kickbacks under the scheme.
Of course some of these players may in fact be innocent. But you can expect the government’s case to be strong here. The prosecutors will probably be able to demonstrate that the medical/dental/chiropractic services detailed in these invoices submitted for reimbursement were not in fact provided. And the government almost certainly has the bank records, phone calls, emails, and text messages showing the transactions between Terrence Williams and the other participating defendants. There are probably several cooperating witnesses as well (i.e. former players who did not participate in the scheme though they were approached about it). So, most of these defendants – if not all of them – are likely to plead guilty. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of federal defendants do.
Sentencing at the federal level is an inexact science. There is no statutory minimum here, and sentencing judges will look to the federal Sentencing Guidelines for guidance. However, the sentences suggested by those Guidelines are merely advisory, and not mandatory or binding. In fraud cases, the biggest variable in the Guidelines calculation is the amount of loss (assuming these defendants mostly do not have criminal records already). The defendants will likely be in Criminal History Category I, on the left hand column of the sentencing table provided for by the Sentencing Guidelines. Their base offense levels for Wire Fraud/Health Care fraud would be six. See U.S.S.G. 2B1.1. But then, you would have to add an additional offense level for the amount of fraud. There is some debate about whether this number should reflect “actual loss” or “intended loss,” which would make a difference here as the intended loss (i.e. the amount of false invoices submitted) was $3.9 million overall, but the actual loss was $2.5 million overall. Theoretically, each member of the group could be held responsible for the entire $3.9 million, as they were co-conspirators in a group effort to defraud the HRA. However, normally, in fraud cases, defendants are held accountable, so to speak, for the amount of money they themselves were actually involved in stealing (though that is not always the case, it is a fuzzy question of foreseeability). Terrence Williams, however, as the mastermind of the scheme, would probably have to add at least 16 levels to his sentencing offense level, in light of his being in charge of the entire scheme. Additionally, “masterminds” or managers of criminal enterprises can have their sentencing levels increased by another four levels. Pleading guilty tends to get a defendant an overall three-level reduction in sentencing offense level, so Terrence Williams could find himself at a suggested Guidelines sentencing range of 57-71 months (offense level 25), or roughly 5-6 years in federal prison.
The Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, makes state law applicable to conduct occurring on lands reserved or acquired by the Federal government (as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 7(3)), when the act or omission is not already a crime under Federal law. For example, a person who commits the New York state law crime of Assault in the Third Degree on federal property might actually be prosecuted in federal court for, essentially, a violation of that state crime. The Assimilative Crimes Act could also possibly provide for the prosecution of sexual assault, burglary, and theft cases on federal property, to name a few examples. See e.g. Hockenberry v. United States, 422 F.2d 171 (9th Cir. 1970). See also United States v. Bowers, 660 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1981) (child abuse); United States v. Smith, 574 F.2d 988 (9th Cir. 1978)(sodomy); United States v. Johnson, 967 F.2d 1431 (10th Cir. 1992)(aggravated assault); United States v. Griffith, 864 F.2d 421 (6th Cir. 1988)(reckless assault); United States v. Kaufman, 862 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1988)(assault); Fesler v. United States, 781 F.2d 384 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1118 (1986)(child abuse).
Finally, it should be noted that although many crimes can be prosecuted in both state and federal court without violating the principle of Double Jeopardy, a state law crime prosecuted in federal court via the Assimilative Crimes Act cannot also be prosecuted in state court. See Grafton v. United States, 206 U.S. 333 (1907).
If you or a loved one have been arrested and charged with a crime occurring on federal property in the New York City area, you should strongly consider contacting the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. Many defense attorneys know state law but are unfamiliar with the unique procedures of federal practice. Matthew Galluzzo, however, is a former Manhattan state prosecutor with over twenty years of experience who now specializes primarily in the defense of federal crimes. Give him a call to discuss your case and his possible representation of you.
Firm News and Legal Information Center