United States v. Dimasi
| Decision Date | 17 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Cr. No. 09–10166–MLW |
| Citation | 220 F.Supp.3d 173 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Salvatore F. DIMASI, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Anthony E. Fuller, Collora LLP, S. Theodore Merritt, Kristina E. Barclay, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for United States of America.
Thomas R. Kiley, William J. Cintolo, Cosgrove, Eisenberg & Kiley, PC, Boston, MA, for Defendant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
III. THE RELEVANT STANDARDS...182
A. 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c) (1) (A) (i)...182
B. The Sentencing Guidelines...182
IV. THE BUREAU OF PRISONS COMPASSIONATE RELEASE PROGRAM, PROCESS, AND PRACTICES...183
A. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons Warrant a Reduction of DiMasi's Sentence to Time–Served...192
I. SUMMARY
In 2011, the court sentenced defendant Salvatore DiMasi to serve eight years in prison for extortion and related crimes committed while he was the Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. On October 13, 2016, the government filed on behalf of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (the "Director") a motion to reduce DiMasi's sentence to time served (the "Motion"). It was filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which gives the court the authority to reduce a sentence if the Director moves for a reduction and the court finds that "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction." Absent a motion by the Director pursuant to the statute the court does not have the authority to reduce DiMasi's sentence.
For the reasons described in detail in this Memorandum, the Motion is being allowed. The court is ordering that DiMasi be released on November 22, 2016, in North Carolina, to the custody of his wife Deborah DiMasi. Mr. and Mrs. DiMasi shall return forthwith to their residence in Massachusetts.
DiMasi's conditions of Supervised Release are being modified to require a period of six months home confinement and that Mrs. DiMasi assure that DiMasi is monitored while eating or drinking, by a member of his family or a health care professional his family may hire, to protect against the risk he will choke and be harmed. DiMasi, who will not be subject to electronic monitoring, may leave his residence for any medical emergency or, with the prior approval of the Probation Office, for medical appointments and religious observances.
If requested, after three months, the court will consider reducing DiMasi's 24–hour home confinement to a curfew. It may also consider extending his period of home confinement.
As ordered previously, DiMasi is prohibited from associating with his convicted co-defendant Richard McDonough. In addition, DiMasi's conditions of Supervised Release are being modified to prohibit him from working with his acquitted co-defendant Richard Vitale, and to prohibit DiMasi and his family from receiving anything of value from Vitale, to whom DiMasi directed hundreds of thousands of dollars DiMasi extorted in this case.
In summary, the reasons for these decisions are as follows. DiMasi began serving his eight-year sentence in November, 2011. With credit for "good time," DiMasi would ordinarily be released in November 2018.
In 2012, DiMasi was found to have cancer in his neck
and tongue. DiMasi was treated with chemotherapy and radiation. This treatment required that DiMasi receive nourishment through a feeding tube for about a year. Tests have shown DiMasi to be free of tongue and neck cancer since at least July 2013.
However, the radiation treatment caused a narrowing of DiMasi's throat. Although there have been nine procedures to dilate
it, his throat remains narrow and DiMasi has substantial difficulty swallowing. It has been recommended that he eat only pureed food. Nevertheless, he is at risk of choking when he eats. He is also at risk of having food go into his lungs, which has in the past caused pneumonia and could again.
In 2015, DiMasi was found to have prostate cancer
. It was treated with radiation. Tests have shown DiMasi to be free of prostate cancer since at least August 2016.
Beginning in 2015, DiMasi and his attorneys filed a series of requests for a motion, pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), for his early release. These requests were repeatedly denied by the Bureau of Prisons, evidently as a result of the Bureau's interpretation of its established standards and its traditional practices.
Before 2013, pursuant to Bureau of Prisons policy and practices, motions for compassionate release were generally filed only for inmates who were terminally ill. Such motions were rare, averaging about 24 a year.
The Bureau of Prisons' restrictive policy for filing § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions was criticized by the Department of Justice Inspector General and various organizations, including Human Rights Watch. In 2013, the Bureau's policy was broadened to make inmates who are not terminally ill eligible for consideration, including elderly inmates with a serious medical condition. However, the Department of Justice Inspector General found in February 2016 that few aging inmates have been the beneficiaries of motions for compassionate release under the expanded policy. In an amendment which became effective on November 1, 2016, the United States Sentencing Commission encouraged the Bureau of Prisons to file motions for compassionate release more often and, therefore, to permit courts to decide more often, after considering the legally required factors and the Commission's guidance, whether a reduction of sentence is warranted.
In June 2016, Kathleen Kenney, the Assistant Director and General Counsel of the Bureau of Prisons, denied DiMasi's then most recent request for a compassionate release motion. She noted that his cancers
were in remission, and that he had no physical or work limitations. She concluded that DiMasi did not meet the criteria for a motion for a reduction in sentence because his health was not deteriorating and his ability to function in a correctional setting was not substantially diminished.
Bureau of Prisons regulations provide that if the Bureau determines that a motion for compassionate release is otherwise justified, the United States Attorney who prosecuted the case will be consulted to determine whether he or she objects to the motion being filed. Therefore, because the Bureau denied DiMasi's request for a compassionate release motion, the United States Attorney ordinarily would not have become involved in this matter.
However, in July 2016, the four lawyers representing DiMasi pro bono met, for at least the second time, with the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, Carmen Ortiz. Ms. Ortiz then spoke with Ms. Kenney to encourage the Bureau of Prisons to reconsider its denial of DiMasi's request for early release. The Bureau responded promptly and, ultimately, positively to this request.
On August 3, 2016, the first medical test to measure DiMasi's ability to swallow since 2014 was performed.
An August 9, 2016 Bureau of Prisons standard report indicated that DiMasi's medical condition was stable, that he had a chronic illness that required at least quarterly evaluation, and that he was able to function independently.
On August 11, 2016, however, DiMasi's Bureau of Prisons' doctor characterized DiMasi's medical condition as unstable and wrote that DiMasi was in the category of fragile outpatients who require daily to monthly clinical attention. Interpreting the August 3, 2016 swallowing test, the doctor noted that: DiMasi's throat had narrowed; he had great difficulty swallowing; and DiMasi reported repeated choking while eating. The doctor characterized DiMasi's condition as chronic, serious, deteriorating and unlikely to improve with treatment. He stated that DiMasi's ability to function while in custody was diminished. The doctor concluded that DiMasi was "probably" appropriate for a motion for a reduction in his sentence.
On August 15, 2016, at the request of the Associate General Counsel of the Bureau of Prisons, the Bureau's Medical Director reviewed DiMasi's record. The Medical Director wrote the attorney that "it is medically indicated that someone be present to assist [DiMasi] with choking prevention while eating or drinking." DiMasi is in custody at a low security level facility in Butner, North Carolina. Butner has a companion program in which inmates provide assistance to other, impaired inmates. Therefore, the Bureau of Prisons could, if medically necessary, assign an inmate to monitor DiMasi when he is eating. However, the Medical Director concluded that DiMasi's health was deteriorating and substantially diminished his ability to function in custody. Therefore, he found DiMasi satisfied the criteria for a reduction in sentence motion for elderly inmates with medical conditions.
Such a motion was filed on October 13, 2016. The Motion gives the court the authority to reduce DiMasi's sentence. It does not, however, make such a reduction automatic. Nor does it give the court unfettered discretion.
Rather, the court is required to weigh the applicable statutory sentencing factors and make a decision that is consistent with the relevant advisory Sentencing Guidelines. The relevant statutory factors include, among others: the defendant's history and characteristics; the need to provide him with any required medical treatment in the most effective manner; the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the defendant's crimes; and the related needs to avoid unwarranted disparities in sentences between similarly situated individuals and to promote respect for the law.
The court issued a series of orders that required the parties to submit evidence and argument regarding the relevant factors. A hearing on the Motion was also held.
It is undisputed that DiMasi is not now terminally ill. Tests indicate that he does not now have throat
or prostate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Young
...Release Program (April 2013), available online at https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2013/e1306.pdf. See also United States v. Dimasi , 220 F. Supp. 3d 173, 175 (D. Mass. 2016) (noting that, prior to 2013, the BOP filed an average of thirteen compassionate-release motions annually and that, al......
-
United States v. Millan, 91-CR-685 (LAP)
...meets the criteria set forth in Section 1B1.13 of the Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, Application Note 4; United States v. Dimasi, 220 F. Supp. 3d 173, 175 (D. Mass. 2016) (discussing the progression from the OIG report to new "encouraging" guidelines). In doing so, the Sentencing Commis......
-
United States v. McDonough, Cr. No. 09–10166–MLW
...for it because these are factors set forth in § 3553(a)(2)(A) and may only be considered at sentencing. See Di m asi , 220 F.Supp.3d at 198 n.15, 2016 WL 6818346 at *23 n. 15.Section 3583(d) authorizes the court to impose "any condition set forth as a discretionary condition of probation in......
-
United States v. Hardy
...in [Comment] Note 1 are met in order to grant" compassionate release on the basis of a medical condition. United States v. Dimasi 220 F. Supp. 3d 173, 193 (D. Mass. 2016). Hardy lists the following medical conditions as placing him at risk for contracting COVID-19: hyperlipidemia (high chol......