U.S. v. Gammarano, No. 02-1499.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | José A. Cabranes |
| Citation | 321 F.3d 311 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John GAMMARANO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 02-1499. |
| Decision Date | 26 February 2003 |
v.
John GAMMARANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Page 312
Alan J. Chaset, Alexandria, VA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Bridget M. Rohde, Assistant United States Attorney (Cecil C. Scott, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel, Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, on the brief) Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.
Before: CABRANES and F.I. PARKER, Circuit Judges, and KAPLAN,* District Judge.
JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge.
Defendant John Gammarano appeals from orders entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sterling Johnson, Jr., Judge) (1) ruling that Gammarano's incarceration for violating the conditions of supervised release imposed as a result of one conviction did not terminate his concurrent term of supervised release stemming from a separate conviction and (2) denying Gammarano's motion for termination of his remaining term of supervised release. We affirm.
On December 13, 1995, Gammarano pleaded guilty in the District Court to extortion and tax violations. On May 2, 1996, he was sentenced principally to imprisonment for fifty-one months and supervised release for three years. This sentence was to run concurrently with a sentence imposed on March 6, 1996 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to Gammarano's guilty plea before that Court to racketeering charges. The Louisiana sentence entailed imprisonment for forty-four months, three years of supervised release, and restitution in the amount of $500,000.
Gammarano was released from custody on January 12, 2000, following completion of the two concurrent terms of imprisonment, and, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Page 313
§ 3624(e),1 he began serving his concurrent terms of supervised release on that date. On July 7, 2000, United States Probation Officer Robert Anton of the Eastern District of New York prepared a Violation of Supervised Release Report ("Violation Report") alleging that Gammarano had submitted false reports concerning his employment and income during the first three months of his supervised release term. The report only referenced the docket number of the New York case.
On September 22, 2000, Judge Johnson endorsed a July 13, 2000 order of the Eastern District of Louisiana, as a result of which the Eastern District of New York accepted jurisdiction from the Eastern District of Louisiana over the term of supervised release resulting from Gammarano's Louisiana conviction.
On October 18, 2000, Judge Johnson held a hearing in response to the Violation Report to determine whether Gammarano had violated the conditions of his supervised release by submitting false monthly reports. The only conviction mentioned during this hearing was Gammarano's conviction in the Eastern District of New York.
On October 27, 2000, after concluding that Gammarano had violated the conditions of his supervised release, Judge Johnson revoked Gammarano's release and sentenced him to eighteen months of imprisonment. The order revoking his release only listed the docket number of the New York conviction. Gammarano began serving this sentence on December 5, 2000 and remained in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons until March 25, 2002.
While Gammarano was incarcerated, Probation Officer Anton sent a letter dated March 5, 2002 to Gammarano's case manager at the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky and asked her to inform Gammarano that he would need to report to the United States Probation Office in Brooklyn, New York within seventy-two hours of his release so that he could begin serving the period of supervised release that remained on his Louisiana conviction.
On March 27, 2002, two days after his release, Gammarano filed a motion in the Eastern District of New York to terminate his remaining term of supervision. He argued that, because his two terms of supervised release were running concurrently and were both being supervised by the Eastern District of New York, the revocation order of October 27, 2000 necessarily terminated both terms of supervision.
On June 28, 2002, Judge Johnson entered an order holding that the revocation of Gammarno's supervised release with respect to his New York conviction did not apply to the supervised release term based on the Louisiana conviction. Recognizing that "`a term of supervised release does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a federal, state, or local crime unless the imprisonment is for a period of less than 30 consecutive days,'" Judge Johnson concluded that twenty-five
Page 314
months of supervised release remained on Gammarano's Louisiana sentence. Gammarano v. United States, Nos. 93 CR 0506(SJ), 00 CR 1166(SJ), at 1, 5 (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2002) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)).
The District Court also recognized, however, that
18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) states that the "court may, after considering factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) ... terminate a term of supervised release and discharge a defendant released at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release,"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Emmett, No. 13–50387.
...each of the factors, the record must reveal that the court gave consideration to the § 3553(a) factors”), and United States v. Gammarano, 321 F.3d 311, 315–16 (2d Cir.2003) (requiring a statement that the court has considered the statutory factors but not findings of fact). 2. The dissent c......
-
United States v. Johnson, No. 17-12577
...v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 820–21 (9th Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Lowe, 632 F.3d 996, 998 (7th Cir. 2011) ; United States v. Gammarano, 321 F.3d 311, 315 (2d Cir. 2003). But see United States v. Mosby, 719 F.3d 925, 930 (8th Cir. 2013) ("Neither 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) nor relevant case l......
-
United States v. Johnson, No. 16-3268
...district court had jurisdiction to revoke a term of supervised release.").4 Appellant's Br. at 11.5 See United States v. Gammarano, 321 F.3d 311, 314 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Nothing in the text of § 3624(e), or any other statute, indicates that the revocation of one term of supervised re......
-
United States v. Bastien, Nos. 09–CR–205
...instead, "a statement that the district court has considered the statutory factors is sufficient." United States v. Gammarano, 321 F.3d 311, 315–16 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting United States v. Gelb, 944 F.2d 52, 56–57 (2d Cir.1991) ) (internal quotation and alteration marks omitted).Ea......
-
United States v. Morris, 3:99-cr-264-17 (VAB)
...United States v. Shellef, No. 03-CR-0723 (JFB), 2018 WL 3199249, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2018) (quoting United States v. Gammarano, 321 F.3d 311, 315-16 (2d Cir. 2003)). “Before modifying the conditions of probation or supervised release, the court must hold a hearing, at which the person h......
-
United States v. Emmett, 13–50387.
...each of the factors, the record must reveal that the court gave consideration to the § 3553(a) factors”), and United States v. Gammarano, 321 F.3d 311, 315–16 (2d Cir.2003) (requiring a statement that the court has considered the statutory factors but not findings of fact). 2. The dissent c......
-
United States v. Johnson, 17-12577
...v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 820–21 (9th Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Lowe, 632 F.3d 996, 998 (7th Cir. 2011) ; United States v. Gammarano, 321 F.3d 311, 315 (2d Cir. 2003). But see United States v. Mosby, 719 F.3d 925, 930 (8th Cir. 2013) ("Neither 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) nor relevant case law re......
-
United States v. Johnson, 16-3268
...the district court had jurisdiction to revoke a term of supervised release.").4 Appellant's Br. at 11.5 See United States v. Gammarano, 321 F.3d 311, 314 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Nothing in the text of § 3624(e), or any other statute, indicates that the revocation of one term of supervised release ......