Court Opinion

ID: 9405433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 16:01:27.636193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:22.139676
License: Public Domain

20-3307-cr
     United States v. Gallicchio

                                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                           FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                                  SUMMARY ORDER

     RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
     TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND
     IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
     COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
     FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR
     AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY
     CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT
     REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1           At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held
 2   at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New
 3   York, on the 28th day of June, two thousand twenty-three.
 4
 5            PRESENT:          GERARD E. LYNCH,
 6                              RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
 7                              JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
 8                                       Circuit Judges.
 9            ------------------------------------------------------------------
10            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
11
12                                 Appellee,
13
14                       v.                                                        No. 20-3307-cr
15
16            VITO GALLICCHIO,
17
18                                 Defendant-Appellant,
19
20            DAVID TAYLOR, DANIEL GARCIA,
21            NICHOLAS AVICOLLI, LAWRENCE
22            MONTALBANO, LEONARD DANZI, DON
23            MICHAEL CARIM, MICHAEL FARLEY,

24                                 Defendants.
25
26            ------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                              1
 1         FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:                      Vito Gallicchio, pro se,
 2                                                       Otisville, NY

 3         FOR APPELLEE:                                 Kiersten A. Fletcher, Justin V.
 4                                                       Rodriguez, Nicolas Roos,
 5                                                       David Abramowicz, Assistant
 6                                                       United States Attorneys, for
 7                                                       Damian Williams, United
 8                                                       States Attorney for the
 9                                                       Southern District of New York,
10                                                       New York, NY

11         Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern

12   District of New York (Andrew L. Carter, Judge).

13         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

14   AND DECREED that the order of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

15         Defendant-Appellant Vito Gallicchio, proceeding pro se, appeals from a

16   September 28, 2020 order of the United States District Court for the Southern

17   District of New York (Carter, J.) denying his motion for a sentence reduction

18   under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

19   underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as

20   necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

21         On November 5, 2019, following a Fatico hearing, the District Court

22   sentenced Gallicchio principally to 144 months’ imprisonment for participating

23   in a narcotics conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C). In July
                                              2
 1   2020 Gallicchio moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A),

 2   arguing primarily that he should be released from prison because his

 3   cardiovascular conditions increased his risk of serious complications from

 4   COVID-19 and because of his efforts at post-sentencing rehabilitation. The

 5   District Court denied Gallicchio’s motion “[b]ased on the [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a)

 6   factors . . ., his supervisory role in the offense, the need for general and specific

 7   deterrence, and the obstruction of justice that he engaged in by intimidating

 8   witnesses.” Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 288, at 7.

 9         On appeal, Gallicchio argues that the District Court abused its discretion in

10   denying his motion for a sentence reduction. In support of his argument,

11   Gallicchio points to the following: (1) the health risks presented by the COVID-19

12   pandemic; (2) evidence of his rehabilitation in prison; (3) his proposed release

13   plan; (4) his prior addiction to oxycodone, which he says explains his criminal

14   conduct; (5) the fact that he did not have a leadership role in the narcotics

15   conspiracy of which he was convicted; and (6) the nonviolent nature of his

16   offense of conviction. We note that Gallicchio raised these considerations before

17   the District Court, which “is presumed to have considered all relevant § 3553(a)

18   factors and arguments unless the record suggests otherwise.” United States v.

                                                 3
 1   Halvon, 26 F.4th 566, 570 (2d Cir. 2022) (quotation marks omitted). To the extent

 2   that Gallicchio challenges the District Court’s balancing of the § 3553 factors,

 3   “this court cannot require that a particular factor be given determinative or

 4   dispositive weight.” United States v. Amato, 48 F.4th 61, 66 (2d Cir. 2022)

 5   (quotation marks omitted). “Rather, the weight to be afforded any § 3553(a)

 6   factor is a matter firmly committed to the discretion of the sentencing judge.”

 7   United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122, 131 (2d Cir. 2008) (quotation marks

 8   omitted). Our review of the record convinces us that the District Court acted

 9   within its discretion in balancing the § 3553(a) factors.

10         Gallicchio also contends that the District Court abused its discretion

11   because it failed to provide a written explanation for denying his motion. We

12   have explained that “[w]hen reviewing a motion for a sentence modification, a

13   district court need only adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for

14   meaningful appellate review.” Halvon, 26 F.4th at 570 (quotation marks

15   omitted). Here, the District Court held a hearing on the motion and explained its

16   rationale for denying the motion on the record. Among other things, the court

17   specifically noted that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors. We conclude that

                                               4
 1   what the District Court did here was sufficient. See Chavez-Meza v. United

 2   States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018).

 3         We have considered Gallicchio’s remaining arguments and conclude that

 4   they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the District Court

 5   is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail Gallicchio a

 6   copy of the transcript of the District Court’s motion hearing and decision, which

 7   can be found on the District Court’s docket at ECF No. 288.

 8                                           FOR THE COURT:
 9                                           Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
10

                                               5