Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Paolu RIZZUTO, also known as Paulie, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-11
Citations: 82 F. App'x 730
Docket Number: No. 02-1396
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Paolu RIZZUTO, also known as Paulie, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 730–731

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Paolu RIZZUTO, also known as Paulie, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-1396.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 11, 2003.
James R. Froccaro, Port Washington, NY, for Appellant.
Peter A. Norling, Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York (Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney, Amy Walsh, Assistant United States Attorney), Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee, of counsel.
PRESENT: CARDAMONE, SACK, and Hon. JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.
Of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant-Appellant Paolu Rizzuto was charged in a multi-defendant racketeering indictment, to which he pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement. At his sentencing on June 21, 2002, the district court declined to grant Rizzuto a downward departure for bringing about a "global disposition" of the case and conserving judicial resources. Rizzuto appeals this aspect of his sentence on the ground that it was inconsistent with the sentencing of co-defendants who did receive a downward departure based on "global disposition."
A district court's decision whether to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines is discretionary, United States v. Paulino, 873 F.2d 23, 25 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam), and we will disturb a decision not to depart downwardly only in the narrowest of circumstances, United States v. Duverge Perez, 295 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir.2002); United States v. Desena, 260 F.3d 150, 159 (2d Cir.2001). After reviewing the record and considering Rizzuto's arguments, we conclude that the inconsistency asserted by Rizzuto does not warrant such a reversal here.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.