United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
September 13, 2005.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
ANGELO CASSANO, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: BLANCHE MANNING, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the court on a limited remand by the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether this court
would impose the defendant's original sentence had the Sentencing
Guidelines been advisory rather than mandatory. See U.S. v.
Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005). In Paladino, the court
Upon reaching its decision (with or without a
hearing) whether to resentence, the District Court
should either place on the record a decision not to
resentence with an appropriate explanation, or inform
this court of its desire to resentence the defendant.
Id. at 484 (citation and quotation marks omitted). In making
this statement, the court should obtain the views of counsel but
need not require the presence of the defendant. Id.
In March 2000, Angelo Cassano was charged in a superseding
indictment with mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2), conspiracy
to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and the
structuring of currency transactions (31 U.S.C. §§ 5324(3) and
5322(a)). On May 10, 2001, a jury convicted Cassano of money
laundering and structuring. The guidelines provided for a range
of 63 to 78 months and the court sentenced Cassano to 63 months'
In determining whether it would impose the same sentence had
the Guidelines been advisory rather than mandatory, the court has
reviewed the written submissions of the parties as to this remand
and the presentence report. The court has considered the nature
and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics
of the defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the purpose for imposing the sentence, and the advisory
Guidelines range of 63-78 months.
In his submission as to this Paladino remand, Cassano asserts
that he should have received credit towards his federal sentence
for the 3-month period from February 23, 2001 to May 25, 2001
when he was being transferred from state to federal custody on a
writ of habeas corpus. However, the court believes this argument
to be beyond the scope of a Paladino remand. In any event, as
the government notes, Cassano does not contend that he did not
receive state credit for the time he spent in federal custody.
The court concludes based on its consideration of all of the
relevant factors that it would impose the same sentence. The
court believes that the sentence of 63 months, which falls at the
bottom of the range advised by the Guidelines, is reasonable. It
properly reflects the seriousness of Cassano's financially-based
crimes (along with his significant criminal history) and holds
him accountable for his conduct. The sentence also not only
protects the community at large but also should deter him from
committing additional criminal activity in the future.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.