US v. Infelise, 90 CR 87.
| Decision Date | 15 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 90 CR 87.,90 CR 87. |
| Citation | 835 F. Supp. 1466 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Rocco Ernest INFELISE and Robert Bellavia. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Mitchell A. Mars, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chicago, IL, for U.S.
Patrick A. Tuite, Chicago, IL, for Infelise.
Kevin E. Milner, Chicago, IL, for Bellavia.
On March 10, 1992, the jury in this five defendant trial reached its verdict. The jury found defendant Rocco Ernest Infelise guilty on Counts 1-2, 6-7, 12-17, and 33-42 of the indictment.1 With respect to Count 1, the jury found Infelise guilty of all charged unlawful debts and Racketeering Acts 5(a)-(c), 6-7, 10(a)-(b), 11(a)-(b), 17(a), 24, and 26.2 The jury found Infelise not guilty of Racketeering Acts 8 and 9(a), and could not reach a verdict on Racketeering Act 17(b).3 The jury also could not reach verdicts on Counts 8-9.4
The jury found defendant Robert Bellavia guilty on Counts 1, 2, and 6 of the indictment.5 With respect to Count 1, the jury found Bellavia guilty of Unlawful Debt 4 and Racketeering Acts 5(a), 17(a), and 24.6 The jury could not reach verdicts on Racketeering Act 17(b), and Counts 8-9.7
This case is currently before the court on defendants Infelise's and Bellavia's objections to their presentence investigation reports ("PSIs") and the government's motion for upward departure.8 For the reasons stated below, this court finds that Infelise's total adjusted offense level is 43, his criminal history category is IV, and his guideline sentence is life in prison. This court also finds that Bellavia's total adjusted offense level is 43, his criminal history category is I, and his guideline sentence is life in prison. Since none of the counts for which Infelise and Bellavia were convicted bear a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, this court will impose consecutive sentences on all counts.
Given the length of this opinion, the court has provided a Table of Contents.
This case involves the illegal activities of one operating unit of the Chicago Outfit or mob known as the Ferriola Street Crew.9 This crew existed primarily to provide income to its members through: (1) the operation of various illegal gambling businesses such as sports bookmaking, parlay cards, and casino games, (2) the collection of "juice" or interest on usurious loans made by the crew, (3) the collection of "street tax" or money from individuals engaged in illegal or quasi-illegal businesses, and (4) the use of these proceeds in the criminal enterprise and other business ventures.10 To conceal their actions, the crew also provided monetary payments to crew members who refused to testify against the crew, instructed potential grand jury witnesses to lie, and attempted to and bribed various police officers, judges, and other political officials.
From 1979 through the indictment in this case, the Ferriola Street Crew was involved in several illegal gambling businesses including a sports bookmaking business, two parlay card businesses from 1979 through 1983, floating blackjack games, and a casino. DeLaurentis also operated gambling rooms in 1982 and a floating dice game from 1986 through 1989 on behalf of the crew.
From 1976 through 1979, defendant William Jahoda operated a sports bookmaking business with Sam Sammarco. In early 1979, Jahoda told Sammarco that he wanted to switch to another bookmaking group and later told Sammarco that he would be working with Infelise. Shortly thereafter, Jahoda had several meetings with Infelise regarding setting up a bookmaking business. In the spring of 1979, Jahoda and representatives of the Ferriola Street crew agreed to form a bookmaking partnership by which profits would be split evenly between Jahoda, Infelise, and the crew. Jahoda was given responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the gambling operation including supervision of the wirerooms. Jahoda reported to Infelise on almost a daily basis regarding daily operations. This partnership continued until 1988 and generated profits of approximately $8 million.
In 1988, Jahoda was arrested twice for operating illegal blackjack games for the crew. As a result, Infelise replaced Jahoda with DeLaurentis, who became a partner and assumed responsibility for the day-to-day management of their gambling operation.11 Defendant William DiDomenico acted as DeLaurentis' principal assistant. Jahoda remained involved in the business as a 50/50 bookmaker.12
Many other defendants were involved in the sports bookmaking business. For example, Bellavia was a collector and a supervisor for the operation. He also supervised the bookmaking activities of Freddie Braun. Marino started as an agent13 and later became a collections supervisor. Marino also supervised the bookmaking activities of Homer Gonzalez for the crew. Michael Zitello acted, at various times, as an agent, 50/50 bookmaker, wireroom clerk, manager, and collector. Robert Covone, Ronald DeRosa, and Frank Maltese were agents, James Coniglio was a 50/50 bookmaker and a collector, James Nicholas was a 50/50 bookmaker, and Thomas McCandless and Robert Garrison were 50/50 bookmakers and wireroom clerks. Paul Spano permitted his business, Flash Interstate Delivery System, Inc. ("Flash Trucking") to be used as a meeting place and operations center for the business. He also kept money at Flash for use in the crew's bookmaking business.
From 1979 through 1983, the crew operated a parlay card business. This operation was initially operated by Infelise, Marino, DeLaurentis, Jahoda, and George Miller. During this time, parlay cards were distributed through agents. In the early 1980's, DeLaurentis attempted to take over all the parlay card businesses in Lake County, Illinois. During the business' later period, it was operated by Infelise, Jahoda, DeLaurentis, Michael Sarno, James Damopoulos, and others. Sarno provided the parlay cards for distribution.
From 1986 through 1988, the crew also operated a floating blackjack game managed by Jahoda under Infelise's supervision. Bellavia, Garrison, Nicholas, and Damopoulos acted as agents for this game. The blackjack games' net profits were split equally between Infelise, Jahoda, Ferriola, and Chuck Burge. The games were rigged through the use of professional card cheats and mirrored shoes. In total, approximately 24 floating blackjack games were held and nearly $1 million in profits was generated.
And, in the spring and summer of 1982, the crew operated a casino in a house in Libertyville, Illinois known as the Rouse House. The casino was managed by Jahoda under Infelise's supervision. The casino had rigged blackjack and craps games. Marino, DeLaurentis, McCandless, and Zitello worked at the casino, and DeLaurentis, McCandless, Zitello, and others provided players for the games. Casino profits were split equally between Infelise, Jahoda, Ferriola, and the crew. During its operation, the casino generated approximately $500,000 in profits.
The Ferriola Street Crew also collected unlawful debts,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laverpool v. New York City Transit Authority
... ... Kiley, individually as in his official capacity as Chairman of the Metropolitan Transit Authority, Defendants ... No. CV 90-2327 (ADS) ... United States District Court, E.D. New York ... October 31, 1993. 835 F. Supp. 1441 COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED ... ...
-
US v. Infelise, 90 CR 87.
...but, Jahoda's testimony was often corroborated by other witnesses and tape recorded conversations. See, e.g., Unites States v. Infelise, 835 F.Supp. 1466 (N.D.Ill.1993); United States v. Maltese, 90 CR 87-19, 1993 WL 222350 (N.D.Ill. June 18, 1993); United States v. Zitello, 90 CR 87-11, 19......
-
U.S. v. Pitts
...for the loss of [a] second life"), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1718, 137 L.Ed.2d 841 (1997); United States v. Infelise, 835 F.Supp. 1466, 1496 n. 51 (N.D.Ill.1993) (holding that "significant and extensive criminal activity" not accounted for by the grouping rules constituted an ad......
-
US v. Marino, 90CR87.
...many occasions, Jahoda's testimony was corroborated by other witnesses and tape recorded conversations. See, e.g., United States v. Infelise, 835 F.Supp. 1466 (N.D.Ill.1993); United States v. Maltese, 90 CR 87-19, 1993 WL 222350 (N.D.Ill. June 18, 1993); United States v. Zitello, 90 CR 87-1......