Court Opinion

ID: 2963740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:34.484411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:45.262769
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        December 6, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1583 

                                VINCENT J. PICCIRILLI,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                         __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Vincent J. Piccirilli on brief pro se.
            _____________________
            Sheldon Whitehouse,  United  States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran
            __________________                             ___________________
        and Charles A. Tamuleviz, Assistant  United States Attorneys, on brief
            ____________________
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Petitioner Vincent  J. Piccirilli  appeals
                 __________

            the  district court  denial of  his  motion to  vacate and/or

            correct judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.   2255.  We affirm.

                 Petitioner  contends first  that  his fine  for cost  of

            incarceration,  pursuant to  U.S.S.G.     5K1.2(i),  and  the

            interest assessed on that fine should be modified because the

            fine  imposed exceeds the actual cost of his confinement.  In

            fact, a fine imposed pursuant  to section 5K1.2(i) is  "meant

            to penalize . . . criminal  actions, not to pay the bills [of

            the  prisoner]."   United  States v. Price,  65 F.3d 903, 908
                               ______________    _____

            n.7 (11th Cir.  1995).  While based on a  general estimate of

            the costs  of confining a  prisoner, the fine  serves several

            purposes  beyond   the  recoupment   of  expenses,   such  as

            compensating victims of crime,  providing for just punishment

            proportional to the seriousness  of the offense and deterring

            others from similar conduct.   See id. at 909;  United States
                                           ___ __           _____________

            v. Zakhor, 58 F.3d 464, 465 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v.
               ______                                    _____________

            May,  52 F.3d  885, 892  (10th Cir.  1995); United  States v.
            ___                                         ______________

            Leonard,  37 F.3d  32, 40  (2d Cir.  1994); United  States v.
            _______                                     ______________

            Turner,  998 F.2d 534, 536  (7th Cir.), cert.  denied, 114 S.
            ______                                  ____   ______

            Ct. 639 (1993); United  States v. Hagmann, 950 F.2d  175, 187
                            ______________    _______

            (5th  Cir.  1991),  cert.  denied,  113  S.  Ct.  108 (1992).
                                ____   ______

            Petitioner's  claim that we treat this fine simply as a means

            of allowing the government to recoup its actual  expenses for

            incarcerating particular individuals is thus without merit.

                                         -2-

                 Petitioner  also claims  that  interest  was  improperly

            assessed  on his fine  for willfully filing  false income tax

            returns.   However, since  his offense was  committed between

            December 31, 1984  and November 1,  1987, the district  court

            was correct  in assessing  interest pursuant to  the Criminal

            Enforcement  Act of  1984, 18  U.S.C.    3565(b)(1) (repealed

            1987).  See United States v. Chapdelaine, 23 F.3d 11, 13 (1st
                    ___ _____________    ___________

            Cir. 1994);  United States v. Atlantic  Disposal Serv., Inc.,
                         _____________    ______________________________

            887 F.2d 1208, 1211 (3d Cir. 1989).

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -3-