Opinion ID: 151405
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Prison Terms Imposed for the Narcotics Counts

Text: For Caracappa's convictions of conspiring to distribute and distributing narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), respectively, the district court sentenced Caracappa to, inter alia, consecutive prison terms of 40 years on each count, the maximum authorized by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Caracappa contends that the total, 80 years' imprisonment, is excessive and represents cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Although these sentences are severe, on the record in the present case we find no basis for disturbing them. In the aftermath of United States v. Booker, we review sentences for reasonableness, ... `a deferential standard limited to identifying abuse of discretion regardless of whether a challenged sentence is inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range.' United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47, 65 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d 163, 170 (2d Cir.2008) (other internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2128, 176 L.Ed.2d 757 (2010). Further, [t]he Eighth Amendment forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime, and in a noncapital case, it is `exceedingly rare' to uphold a claim that a sentence within the statutory limits is disproportionately severe. United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 163 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 272, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980) (other internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis ours)); see also United States v. Olson, 450 F.3d 655, 686 (7th Cir.2006) (In non-capital felony convictions, a particular sentence that falls within legislatively prescribed limits will not be considered disproportionate unless the sentencing court abused its discretion.); United States v. Organek, 65 F.3d 60, 62 (6th Cir.1995) (a sentence within the statutory maximum set by statute generally does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment (internal quotation marks omitted)). In the present case, the district court explained the severe sentences imposed on Caracappa and Eppolito as follows: For many years, these two defendants, while members of the New York City Police Force, were employed by the mafia to murder, to reveal FBI and police files to criminals, to conduct surveillances as directed by mafia bosses, and to undertake other duties on behalf of mobsters. They were paid substantial retainers, with added amounts for the commission of specific criminal acts, including murders, collecting large sums of money over many years. Sentences are now imposed pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, relevant case law, and applicable statutes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Eppolito, 543 F.3d 25 (2d Cir.2008), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1027, 173 L.Ed.2d 313 (2009). The critical elements of the applicable statute in this case are general deterrence to discourage similar acts by others, and just punishment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(B). On June 5, 2006, the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) were described as follows by the court: It is hard to visualize any more heinous offenses.... A heavy sentence is required to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the offenses ... and to deter like conduct by any person who might be in the position of these defendants. It is necessary to deter their own criminal conduct as revealed by the circumstances of the events as late as 2005 and 2006 [when, as the Court of Appeals has now found, they continued to conspire to commit crimes with criminal mobsters ]. It is necessary under the statute to protect the public from further crimes of these defendants. A non-incarceratory sentence would not be appropriate. Hr'g Tr. 40-41, June 5, 2006. In addition to committing cruel murders and engaging in a dangerous racketeering conspiracy in violation of section 1962(d) of Title 18 of the United States Code (RICO), these two defendants have committed what amounts to treason against the people of the City of New York and their fellow police officers. They are sentenced to the maximum sentence of imprisonment and to the maximum fine for each crime of which they have been convicted, imposed consecutively. Judgment dated March 6, 2009, at 1-2 (alterations in original) (emphasis added). Although Caracappa contends that the district court's explanation of its reasons for the sentence, quoted in part in the Judgment, was inadequate to support the sentence imposed, he voiced no such objection in the district court. Thus, his present objection is reviewable only for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204, 208 (2d Cir.2007). We see no such error, and no prejudicial effect on Caracappa's substantial rights. While Caracappa argues that the transaction reflected in the record was a small one and that there is no reason to believe that Mr. Caracappa had solicited, wanted or even anticipated that Steven [ sic ] Corso would propose a drug transaction as a condition precedent for what was represented to be a legal negotiation coming to fruition (Caracappa brief on appeal at 54), the evidence as to that transaction, quoted in Part II.C.2 above, reveals that Caracappa unhesitatingly agreed to have his associate supply drugs as requested by Corso. Further, as the district court noted, the activities of Caracappa and Eppolito in Las Vegas were a continuation of their business of providing illicit services. As noted in Eppolito II, [t]he jury was entitled to view the offers of Eppolito and Caracappa to provide assistance to members and associates of organized crime as general and open-ended... and thus as encompassing defendants' conduct in Las Vegas, which included Eppolito's offers and attempts to launder the proceeds of narcotics trafficking and other organized crime activities, and Eppolito's and Caracappa's involvement in narcotics trafficking in order to induce would-be investors to give them money for a film in whose funding members of organized crime were integrally involved. 543 F.3d at 58. It was within the discretion of the district court to view Caracappa's narcotics trafficking as an integral part of his and Eppolito's criminal activity, rather than in isolation, and to impose the maximum punishment authorized by law.