U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

District of New Jersey

970 Broad Street, Suite 700 (973) 645-2700

Newark, NJ 07102 

August 23, 2012

Honorable Katharine S. Hayden

U.S. Courthouse & Post Office Building

Federal Square

Newark, New Jersey 07101

SENT BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

Re: United States v. Anselmo Genovese 

Crim. No. 11-164 

Dear Judge Hayden:

On or about July 11, 2012, this Court sentenced defendant

Anselmo Genovese to a probationary term of three years with a

special condition of eight months of home confinement. The

United States submits this letter in opposition to the request of

defendant Genovese to modify the terms of his home confinement. 

Genovese has two children that visit him every weekend, and

for additional unscheduled visits during the week. His electronic

monitoring device1 does not reach the yard of his residence. 

Genovese has requested that this Court enter an Order permitting

him to “enter the yard of his residence between 7:00 a.m. and

9:00 p.m. whenever either of his children are present.” The

government opposes this request for several reasons.

First, once the electronic monitoring device is deactivated

due to the children being “present” the Probation Office will

have no way to monitor whether Genovese is in fact in his yard or

somewhere else during the 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. time frame. 

Second, Genovese has already been given permission to leave

his residence for employment purposes. In this regard, he has

provided Probation with a work schedule of 5:00 a.m. until 9:00

p.m. from Monday to Saturday. Thus, Genovese is already

1

 Probation Officer Javier Enciso advised that the

electronic monitoring equipment was activated on August 21, 2012.

1

Case 2:11-cr-00164-KSH Document 33 Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 218
Hon. Katharine S. Hayden

July 10, 2012

Page 2

permitted to be out of his home 16 hours a day for “work”

purposes. The only day of the week that Genovese is actually at

home is Sunday. If the Court were to permit Genovese an

additional 14 hour window to be in the “yard,” it would, for all

practical purposes, render the “home confinement” aspect of

Genovese’s sentence a complete nullity, and would not provide

just punishment for the instant offense, see 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a)(2)(A). 

Third, the existing home confinement terms do not prevent

the children from using the “yard” when they visit the defendant. 

To the extent that the children require supervision in the yard,

it should be incumbent upon the defendant to make the necessary

arrangements. Defendant has both the family support2 and

financial resources to make that happen. Moreover, it is my

understanding that the home itself provides ample means of

entertainment for the children, including a gym and basketball

court. Moreover, given that the defendant will be on home

confinement during the fall and into the winter months, the

children’s use of the yard until 9:00 p.m. at night appears

unlikely.

For all these reasons, the government respectfully requests

that this Court deny the current application. 

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL J. FISHMAN

United States Attorney

s/ Leslie F. Schwartz 

By: LESLIE F. SCHWARTZ

Assistant U.S. Attorney

cc: Gerald L. Shargel, Esq. (by e-mail)

 Javier Enciso, U.S.P.O. (by e-mail) 

2

 In this regard, defendant’s fiancee resides with the

defendant at his residence in Staten Island. (PSR at ¶ 99.)

2

Case 2:11-cr-00164-KSH Document 33 Filed 08/27/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 219
 

3

Case 2:11-cr-00164-KSH Document 33 Filed 08/27/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 220