U.S. v. Gigante, No. 1411

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation187 F.3d 261
Parties(2nd Cir. 1999) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee. v. VINCENT GIGANTE, VITTORIO AMUSO, VENERO MANGANO, BENEDETTO ALOI, PETER GOTTI, DOMINIC CANTERINO, PETER CHIODO, JOSEPH ZITO, DENNIS DELUCIA, CAESAR GURINO, VINCENT RICCIARDO, JOSEPH MARION, JOHN MORRISSEY, THOMAS MCGOWAN, VICTOR SOLOLEWSKI, ANTHONY B. LAINO, GERALD COSTABILE, ANDRE CAMPANELLA, MICHAEL REALMUTO, RICHARD PAGLIARULO, MICHAEL DESANTIS, MICHAEL SPINELLI, THOMAS CAREW, CORRADO MARINO, Defendants. ANTHONY CASSO, Defendant-Appellant. ocket
Decision Date01 August 1998
Docket NumberD,No. 1411,No. 98-1413

Page 261

187 F.3d 261 (2nd Cir. 1999)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee.
v.
VINCENT GIGANTE, VITTORIO AMUSO, VENERO MANGANO, BENEDETTO ALOI, PETER GOTTI, DOMINIC CANTERINO, PETER CHIODO, JOSEPH ZITO, DENNIS DELUCIA, CAESAR GURINO, VINCENT RICCIARDO, JOSEPH MARION, JOHN MORRISSEY, THOMAS MCGOWAN, VICTOR SOLOLEWSKI, ANTHONY B. LAINO, GERALD COSTABILE, ANDRE CAMPANELLA, MICHAEL REALMUTO, RICHARD PAGLIARULO, MICHAEL DESANTIS, MICHAEL SPINELLI, THOMAS CAREW, CORRADO MARINO, Defendants.
ANTHONY CASSO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1411, Docket No. 98-1413
August Term, 1998
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND CIRCUIT
Argued April 14, 1999
Decided April 28, 1999
Opinion filed Aug. 9, 1999

Appeal from an order and judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Block, J.).

Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part.

JOSHUA L. DRATEL, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

GEORGE A. STAMBOULIDIS, Assistant United States Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Zachary W. Carter, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, David C. James, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Appellee.

Before: VAN GRAAFEILAND, JACOBS, and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Casso appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence, which followed a guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Block, J.). Casso challenges (i) the district court's refusal to order the government to make a substantial assistance motion pursuant to his cooperation agreement and (ii) the court's refusal to order his return to the Witness Security Program ("the Program"). See United States v. Casso, 9 F. Supp. 2d 199 (E.D.N.Y. 1998).

In an unpublished summary order, we affirmed the district court's judgment regarding the substantial assistance motion. See United States v. Gigante, No. 98-1413, 1999 WL 265020, at *2-*3 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 1999). Moreover, we held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Casso's motion for an order returning him to the Program, and vacated this portion of the court's judgment, remanding with instructions to dismiss the motion. See id.

After the summary order was issued, the government filed a motion to publish. The government noted that this Court has never published an opinion discussing a

Page 262

court's jurisdiction to review a decision of the Attorney General to terminate someone from the Program. We grant the government's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Garmhausen v. Holder, No. 07–CV–2565 (ARR)(LB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • December 3, 2010
    ...which exempts from judicial review decisions by the Attorney General to terminate protection. See § 3521(f); United States v. Gigante, 187 F.3d 261, 262 (2d Cir.1999) (district court lacked jurisdiction to review termination of a Program participant pursuant to § 3521(f)). Doe should not be......
  • J.S. v. T'Kach, Docket No. 11–1287–pr.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 10, 2013
    ...punishment. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.), relying on United States v. Gigante, 187 F.3d 261 (2d Cir.1999), held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over JS's termination claim and, without reaching the sufficiency of his solita......
  • Garmhausen v. Holder, No. 07-CV-2565 (ARR) (LB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • December 3, 2010
    ...which exempts from judicial review decisions by the Attorney General to terminate protection. See § 3521(f); United States v. Gigante, 187 F.3d 261, 262 (2d Cir. 1999) (district court lacked jurisdiction to review termination of a Program participant pursuant to § 3521(f)). Doe should not b......
  • J.S. v. T'Kach, Docket No. 11-1287-pr
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 10, 2013
    ...punishment. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.), relying on United States v. Gigante, 187 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 1999), held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over JS's termination claim and, without reaching the sufficiency of his solit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Garmhausen v. Holder, No. 07–CV–2565 (ARR)(LB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • December 3, 2010
    ...which exempts from judicial review decisions by the Attorney General to terminate protection. See § 3521(f); United States v. Gigante, 187 F.3d 261, 262 (2d Cir.1999) (district court lacked jurisdiction to review termination of a Program participant pursuant to § 3521(f)). Doe should not be......
  • J.S. v. T'Kach, Docket No. 11–1287–pr.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 10, 2013
    ...punishment. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.), relying on United States v. Gigante, 187 F.3d 261 (2d Cir.1999), held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over JS's termination claim and, without reaching the sufficiency of his solita......
  • Garmhausen v. Holder, No. 07-CV-2565 (ARR) (LB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • December 3, 2010
    ...which exempts from judicial review decisions by the Attorney General to terminate protection. See § 3521(f); United States v. Gigante, 187 F.3d 261, 262 (2d Cir. 1999) (district court lacked jurisdiction to review termination of a Program participant pursuant to § 3521(f)). Doe should not b......
  • J.S. v. T'Kach, Docket No. 11-1287-pr
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 10, 2013
    ...punishment. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.), relying on United States v. Gigante, 187 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 1999), held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over JS's termination claim and, without reaching the sufficiency of his solit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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