Source: http://mafianj.com/newjerseymafia/?cat=43
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:38:41+00:00

Document:
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Greenaway, Jr., U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before this Court on the motion filed by petitioner, Richard DeSciscio (“Petitioner”), pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b), seeking to reconsider the denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Conviction, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Section 2255”),*fn1 and/or reconsider Petitioner’s sentencing.*fn2 Petitioner asserts that his right to Due Process under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was violated throughex-parte communications with the judge who sentenced him and ruled on his Section 2255 petition following his conviction. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
On August 25, 1989 — approximately twenty years ago — a jury convicted Petitioner of racketeering, three counts of conspiracy to murder in aid of racketeering, murder, and conducting an illegal gambling operation. The convictions for conspiracy to murder in aid of racketeering involved the planned murders of John Gotti and Gene Gotti, and the murder of Irwin Schiff in August 1987. Petitioner was tried with co-defendant, Louis Anthony Manna (“Manna”), for these crimes related to the Genovese Family’s organized criminal activities. United States v. Manna, No. 97-2034, 2006 WL 3063456 at *1 (D.N.J. Oct. 25, 2006). Former District Judge Maryanne Trump Barry (“Judge Barry”) sentenced Petitioner to seventy-five years imprisonment on September 26, 1989.
The Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction on November 21, 1990. DeSciscio v. United States, 919 F.2d 733 (3d Cir. 1990). The Supreme Court of the United States denied Petitioner’s petition for certiorari on April 15, 1991. DeSciscio v. United States, 499 U.S. 962 (1991).
Petitioner eventually filed a motion to vacate his conviction, pursuant to Section 2255, on April 30, 1997. DeSciscio v. United States, No. 97-2285 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 1997). Judge Barry denied this motion, as untimely, on September 9, 1997, after finding no grounds for invoking the equitable tolling doctrine to excuse Petitioner’s late filing of the motion. Id.
The FBI Memos discuss an investigation into a potential plot to murder individuals involved in Manna’s and Petitioner’s trial and convictions. (Pet’r’s Mot. Ex. B.) The investigation sought to discover the veracity of an alleged plot by Manna, and possibly other inmates, to murder former United States District Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, former United States Attorney Samuel Alito, and former Assistant United States Attorney Michael Chertoff. Manna, 2006 WL 3063456 at *6.
On January 11, 2008, Petitioner filed a pro se Motion for Relief, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b), to reconsider the denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Conviction, pursuant to Section 2255, and/or reconsider Petitioner’s sentencing. On February 4, 2009, the Government answered.
Petitioner seeks a hearing to consider his claims, under Rules 60(b)(3) and 60(b)(6), that he was denied due process, both during his sentencing and when his 1997 petition to vacate his sentence, pursuant to Section 2255, was dismissed.
FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). Where “the factual predicate of a petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion attacks the manner in which the earlier Section 2255 judgment was procured and not the underlying conviction, the Rule 60(b) motion may be adjudicated on the merits.” Pridgen v. Shannon, 380 F.3d 721, 727 (3d Cir. 2004). “However, when the Rule 60(b) motion seeks to collaterally attack the petitioner’s underlying conviction, the motion should be treated as a successive habeas petition.” Id.
To the extent Petitioner challenges the procedures of both his sentencing and his Section 2255 proceedings, this Court shall interpret this motion under Rule 60(b).
This Court need not review any direct challenges to the legitimacy of Petitioner’s conviction or sentencing as the Third Circuit has not granted him leave to file a second or successive Section 2255 petition. See In re Olabode, 325 F.3d 166, 169 (3d Cir. 2003).
“A motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Pierce Assoc., Inc. v. Nemours Foundation, 865 F.2d 530, 548 (3d Cir. 1988). However, Rule 60(b) limits the time within which the motion must be filed. Generally, a movant must file within a “reasonable time” from the date of the decision to be vacated. However, a motion for reason three (3) of Rule 60(b) may be filed “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). A “reasonable time” to move to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b) is based on the circumstances of the individual case. Delzona Corp. v. Sacks, 265 F.2d 157, 159 (3d Cir. 1959). For example, where the information regarding the grounds for the motion was available for “almost two years” prior to the filing of the Rule 60(b) motion, the motion was not timely filed. Moolenaar v. Government of Virgin Islands, 822 F.2d 1342, 1348 (3d Cir. 1987); see also Kamara v. Attorney General of U.S., 206 F. App’x 189, 191 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding 20 month delay not within a “reasonable time”).
Under certain circumstances, the principles of equitable tolling will allow the court to extend these limitations, but the doctrine does not extend to “garden variety claim[s] of excusable neglect.” Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990). Here, Petitioner does not argue excusable neglect; thus, he is entitled to no equitable tolling.
This Court finds that Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion is filed untimely. In the instant case, Petitioner filed his Rule 60(b) motion nearly twenty years after his sentencing and twelve years following the denial of his Section 2255 petition. In an apparent effort to circumvent the untimeliness of this motion, Petitioner claims he did not discover the evidence regarding the alleged ex-parte communications between the FBI and Judge Barry until January 2, 2008. (Pet’r’s Mot. ¶ 12.) This claim is not supported by the record.
In May 2007, Petitioner sought leave from the Third Circuit to file a second Section 2255 petition. In that motion, Petitioner incorporated the arguments raised in Manna’s pleadings before Judge Debevoise regarding similar Rule 60(b) claims. Judge Debevoise’s decision,*fn3 dated October 25, 2006, which denied Manna’s Rule 60(b) motion, outlined Manna’s allegations of exparte governmentalcommunications with Judge Barry, and extensively quoted the FBI Memos. These allegations, which are based on the same facts as Petitioner’s current claims, are largely identical to those raised by Petitioner’s current argument. This information leads this Court to conclude that Petitioner knew of the information contained within the FBI Memos long before he submitted this Rule 60(b) motion.
Since it appears from Petitioner’s submissions to the Court of Appeals thatPetitioner was aware of the FBI Memos at the latest in May 2007, and possibly as early as September 2005, this Court concludes that Petitioner delayed his filing and the motion was not made within a “reasonable time.” Therefore, this Rule 60(b) motion is denied because it was filed in an untimely manner.
Even if Petitioner’s motion were filed in a timely manner, this Court would deny the motion on the merits. A movant under Rule 60(b) must “show ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying reopening of the final judgment.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (quoting Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)). “Such circumstances will rarely arise in the habeas context.” Id.
Petitioner has offered little evidence to support his claim that Judge Barry received any information alleging Petitioner’s involvement in the murder plot. While the FBI Memos Petitioner provides here do discuss a murder plot against Judge Barry, they address a plot orchestrated by Manna. The only discussion of Petitioner in the memoranda is as a co-defendant at trial and an individual whose communications should be monitored based solely on his connection to Manna. (Pet’r’s Br. Ex. B (Docket Entry No. 1-2 p. 38).) Discussing the risk of the alleged threat, the FBI reported, “Manna’s reputation and evidence presented at his trial indicate that he is more than capable of ordering the execution of others.” (Pet’r’s Mot. Ex. B. p. 37.) The FBI, in a separate memo, went on to discuss Manna’s continued ability to utilize the Genovese organization for violent acts, noting, “Manna’s incarceration should not be viewed as a barrier to any control he may have over other Genovese members or associates.” (Pet’r’s Mot. Ex. B. p. 38.) These documents demonstrate the FBI’s singular interest in Manna as the source of the potential threat to Judge Barry, and do not support Petitioner’s assertion that the FBI believed him to be part of the murder plot.
The record fails to support any reasonable inference that Judge Barry was told about Petitioner being involved in the plot. The memos simply report that “appropriate notifications” were made to Judge Barry. (Pet’r’s Mot. Ex. B. p. 38.) Any number of notifications could have been appropriate, including a warning of generalized threats from prisoners. Petitioner’s inference that this language indicates Judge Barry was informed that Petitioner was part of a plot to kill her is baseless.
This Court finds that there is no basis to support Petitioner’s claim that ex-parte communications between the FBI and Judge Barry tainted his sentencing and the review of his Section 2255 petition. Petitioner has failed to state any “extraordinary circumstances” that would merit vacation of either his sentencing or Section 2255 proceedings.
For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion is untimely and, and even if it were timely, it is without merit. Petitioner’s motion is denied.
JOSEPH A. GREENAWAY, JR., U.S.D.J.
[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress [to] claim the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States… [and to] move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
*fn2 Petitioner was tried and convicted before Judge Maryanne Trump Barry in 1989. She sentenced him on September 26, 1989. Judge Barry denied Petitioner’s Section 2255 motion on September 9, 1997.
*fn3 The Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Debevoise’s denial of Manna’s Rule 60(b) motion. Manna v. United States, No. 06-4788, slip op. (3d Cir. June 28, 2007).
*fn4 Assuming, arguendo, that Judge Barry received information of the alleged murder plot by Manna, she would not have been required to recuse herself. See United States v. Dalfonso, 707 F.2d 757, 761 (3d Cir. 1983) (recusal unnecessary where a third party, or even the accused, makes unsubstantiated claims of “improper inducement”); see also In re Basciano, 542 F.3d 950, 956 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Although a plot or threat, real or feigned, may create a situation in which a judge must recuse himself, recusal is not ordinarily or routinely required.”).
In testimony at the public hearing, FBI Special Agent Robert Lenehan described Casella’s as “a safe haven, a secure stronghold where (Manna) could meet his criminal associates and direct his criminal operations on behalf of the Genovese family.” Manna has now been convicted on federal racketeering and conspiracy charges and has been sentenced to 80 years in prison. At the time of his conviction, he was the consigliere (counselor) — the third ranking member — of the Genovese crime family, one of the most powerful families in the nation. Casella’s was owned by Martin “Motts” Casella, a longtime associate of Manna who was convicted with him and who has since died in federal prison.
Agent Lenehan further described Casella’s as a secure, virtually impregnable stronghold …. Nothing happened in Casella’s Restaurant without Marty’s knowledge; there were lookouts on the street and watchful eyes at the bar. Even certain bathrooms were off limits to patrons because they were used as secure meeting rooms for Bobby, Marty and their close associates. For years, Casella’s control and influence in the blocks surrounding Casella’s led FBI agents to conclude that the restaurant was virtually immune to electronic surveillance, our most valued investigative and prosecutive technique.
Presumably, those “watchful eyes” Lenehan referred to did not include Hoboken authorities, who continually renewed Martin Casella’s liquor license, despite his notorious and long association with Manna and the Genovese crew.
one of the three most powerful positions in any LCN (La Cosa Nostra) family, responsible for advising the boss, controlling thecapos, one of the chain of command who could authorize murders and make the major decisions of the family — in the thin air of conclaves of bosses, Commission meetings, making and breaking bosses, the LCN boardroom.
And most of these decisions were made at Casella’s.
In his testimony, Lenehan was describing the period leading up to the investigation, trial and conviction of Manna, Casella and other figures in the Genovese crime family. Lenehan noted that Manna’s usual haunts were the street corners of Manhattan’s Little Italy, but in the late 1980s New York became a “swirling arena of law enforcement pressure” and Manna returned more often to the relatively safe haven of Hudson County and Casella’s.
Q. How did Bobby Manna use Casella’s Restaurant?
A. Well, it was a meeting place for anybody who wanted to see him or, you know, from other families or his own family, whatever.
Q. Did you ever have a sit-down at Casella’s Restaurant?
A. Yeah, I had a sit-down with a customer that they had taken from me by one of his controllers, Bobby Manna’s controllers, and went there with Freddie Salerno in a sit-down and they gave him back.
Q.Who was the subject of that?
A. Petey Cap. Petey Cap is with Bobby Manna and he’s in the gambling business, and he had stolen one of my runners.
Q. How was that dispute resolved?
A. It was ruled in my favor and Bobby told Petey Cap, make sure that he got back to me.
Q. Is Petey Cap, Petey Caporino?
Q. Do you know Alfred Salerno, Freddie Salerno?
Q. What position in what family was he?
A. Bruno/Scarfo family, he was a soldier.
Q. He was murdered in 1980. Do you know why?
A. Well, supposedly Freddie Salerno and Tony Bananas did (killed) Angelo Bruno, and also over a giant number package in Jersey City, two million dollars a day, numbers.
Q. How much a day?
Q. Did you ever drive Freddie Salerno to Casella’s Restaurant?
A. To see Bobby Manna.
Q. Do you recall how many times, approximately, you did that?
A. I don’t know, four, five, six times, I don’t know.
Q. Do you know why he was meeting with Bobby Manna?
A. It had something to do with gambling.
Q. Did Salerno ever send you to Casella’s Restaurant?
A. To set up a meeting with Bobby Manna.
Q. You referred to Petey Cap, Peter Caporino, an associate in the Genovese family?
Q. To whom did he report?
A. Bobby Manna, or Motts.
Q. And what were his illegal activities?
A. Mainly gambling, but a little bit of shylocking also.
Q. Did you ever meet Petey Cap at Casella’s Restaurant?
A. Over a runner that they stole from me.
Q. Did you ever see Hoboken Peter Libutti at Casella’s Restaurant?
A. Pete Libutti, yeah, I’ve seen him.
Q. What position did he hold?
A. He’s an associate of the Genovese family.
Q. And what illegal activity did he engage in?
A. Fencing mostly, you know, jewelry, gold, silver, bonds, securities, things like that.
Q. What did Hoboken Pete do at Casella’s Restaurant?
A. It was a hangout for him, you know, he knew Bobby Manna well.
Manna and Casella were arrested in 1988 on the federal charges. While they were on trial in 1989, the restaurant was operated by Casella’s wife Shirley under the name of Pascale’s, with a full-time manager who had invested personal funds in the operation. Mrs. Casella and Martin’s brother Frank, a 10-per cent stockholder, failed to notify the Hoboken ABC board of the name change, of the absentee ownership or of the new investment by the manager. And Hoboken did not act on its own to take any administrative action against the license.
Casella, Manna and their co-defendants were convicted on June 26, 1989; four days later, Hoboken renewed the liquor license with Casella still listed as a 90 per cent stockholder. Casella was sentenced to 80 years in prison in September, 1989, but the following June, the license was renewed yet again. It was not until the property was sold at a sheriff’s sale on October 24, 1990, that the license finally changed hands.
Q. I show you Exhibit Number 11, the renewal application for Marty’s Mile Square Incorporated, trading as Casella’s Restaurant.
Q. If you look at the second page, is that your signature at the bottom?
Q. The date indicated is June 19, 1990. Is that the date on which you accepted the application?
A. That’s the date I accepted the moneys and the application, yes.
Q. Who presented the application to you?
Q. Which Casella? There are two listed as owners. Martin and Frank.
Q. The application indicated the trade name to be Casella’s Restaurant. Do you know whether that’s true or not?
A. It’s — as far as our records are concerned, it’s still Casella’s Restaurant, yes.
Q. The premises operates under the name Pascale’s. Are you aware of that?
A. That — he has been informed that he had to amend his license to make it — change the trade name.
A. Mrs. — I believe it’s Mrs. Casella because she came in recently and I told her that as long as the trade name, Casella’s Restaurant, is no longer being used, that she has to submit the license to make it Pascale’s.
Q. When did you tell her that?
A. It was right around the renewal period time. It must have been around the renewal period time.
Q. How did you know that the premises were operating under the name Pascale’s?
A. I travel through the city. It’s only a mile square. When I come in from out of town, I usually make the turn on — on Jackson Street. I come through Jackson Street and then I shoot right up.
In fact, Hoboken officials told Mrs. Casella she had to amend the license because agents from this Commission informed Hoboken officials that the name on the bar had been changed.
Q. — that holds the license. Are you familiar with the fact that Martin Casella is also known as Motts Casella?
Q. — on racketeering charges? Why was this application approved?
A. Here again, it’s — it’s a good question. Seeing that there was a Mr. Frank Casella who was vice-president and he was the person who signed it, the application was accepted.
Q. Frank Casella is listed as a ten percent owner.
Q. — he is in prison for close to 80 years. Why was this application approved?
A. I can’t answer that. I — it was just approved.
Q. Whose decision was it to approve it?
A. Well, I accepted the application. My name is on it.
Q. And the Board approved it?
CHAIRMAN ZAZZALI: You accepted, Board approved? THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am — yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN ZAZZALI: What was the vote? THE WITNESS: Unanimous — well, on the renewal application — here’s what happened. On the renewal everything is received and submitted to the State and the State is the one that actually finalizes it all. The Board looks through it and they agree that it’s a renewal and it’s submitted to the State and the State takes responsibility on advertising it.
A. There’s no objections to this.
Q. Let me ask you one more time: Why did the Board approve the application for Martin Casella, a convicted felon, serving prison time, to hold a liquor license?
A. It was just presented as renewal. I typed up all the resolutions and I presented it as a renewal.
Just to give you guys a good picture of what goes on in the town of Hoboken, Leo [Leonard] Serrano was a former police officer. He was — I don’t know if he was fired or whatever, but he had some legal trouble and was no longer a police officer, and he got a job upstairs in the court — in the City Clerk’s office as the Hoboken ABC secretary. The town of Hoboken is a very close-knit family that goes back a long way in the town and everyone seems to do each other favors and turn their heads when they have to turn their heads.

References: § 2255
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.