104 F.3d 354 (2nd Cir. 1996), 95-1503, U.S. v. Giattino
|Citation:||104 F.3d 354|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. Vincent GIATTINO, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Case Date:||November 05, 1996|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA2 s 0.23 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Appearing for Appellant: James R. Froccaro, Port Washington, N.Y.
Appearing for Appellee: Elisa Liang, Ass't U.S. Att'y, EDNY, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Before KEARSE, WALKER and JACOBS, Circuit Judges.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and was argued by counsel.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed.
Defendant Vincent Giattino appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York convicting him, following a jury trial before Reena Raggi, Judge, of racketeering, murder, narcotics, and firearms offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 1952B(a)(1) and (5), 1962(c), 3623, and 2; and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C), and 846. Giattino was sentenced principally to five concurrent life terms of imprisonment, two 10-year terms to be served concurrently with the life terms, and one 30-year term to be served consecutively to the other terms, to be followed by 23 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay a $200,000 fine. On appeal, he contends principally that there was insufficient evidence (a) to establish a nexus with interstate commerce and (b) to establish that he committed a murder in order to "maintain or increase" his position in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952B. He also contends that his conviction should be vacated because the government failed to disclose Brady material that could have been used to cross-examine the government witness Hunt. Finding no merit in his contentions, we affirm.
In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, a defendant bears a heavy burden. In order to prevail, he must show that, after...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP