In re Scungio

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

In re Scungio

806 A.2d 533, 2002 R.I. LEXIS 177, 2002 WL 31177483

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedSeptember 18, 2002

DocketNo. 2000-414 M.P.

StatusPublished

This text of 806 A.2d 533 (In re Scungio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Scungio, 806 A.2d 533, 2002 R.I. LEXIS 177, 2002 WL 31177483 (R.I. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to a motion of the Respondent, John A. Scungio, for Reconsideration and/or Rehearing. On December 12, 2000, the Respondent was disbarred from the practice of law after his felony conviction of one count of making materially false statements and representations to special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. In re Scungio, 762 A.2d 1205 (R.I.2000). At the time Respondent was before this Court he had been sentenced to a three-year term of probation, with the first six months of probation to be served in home confinement; fined $40,000; and ordered to pay a $100 special assessment. We noted that Respondent had a pending appeal regarding the terms of his sentence only, and that the results of that appeal would not affect the validity of his conviction. Id, at 1205, Footnote 1.

On July 6, 2001 the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Respondent’s sentence and remanded the case for the imposition of a new sentence. United States v. Scungio, 255 F.3d 11 (1st Cir.2001).

On October 25, 2001, pursuant to the remand order, an Amended Judgment in a Criminal Case was imposed by the United States District Court. The Respondent was again placed on probation for a term of three years, with home confinement re[534]*534strictions for the first six months (which period has been served). He was ordered to pay a reduced fine of $5,000, and required to pay the $100 special assessment.

In his motion the Respondent asserts that the amended sentence constitutes a substantial change in circumstances as the re-sentencing was based on a different analysis of the nature of the Respondent’s conduct. After review of the submissions of the Respondent and the reply memorandum submitted by Disciplinary Counsel, we deem that Respondent’s motion lacks merit.

Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration and/or Rehearing is hereby denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to a motion of the Respondent, John A. Scungio, for Reconsideration and/or Rehearing. On December 12, 2000, the Respondent was disbarred from the practice of law after his felony conviction of one count of making materially false statements and representations to special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. In re Scungio, 762 A.2d 1205 (R.I.2000). At the time Respondent was before this Court he had been sentenced to a three-year term of probation, with the first six months of probation to be served in home confinement; fined $40,000; and ordered to pay a $100 special assessment. We noted that Respondent had a pending appeal regarding the terms of his sentence only, and that the results of that appeal would not affect the validity of his conviction. Id, at 1205, Footnote 1.

On July 6, 2001 the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Respondent’s sentence and remanded the case for the imposition of a new sentence. United States v. Scungio, 255 F.3d 11 (1st Cir.2001).

On October 25, 2001, pursuant to the remand order, an Amended Judgment in a Criminal Case was imposed by the United States District Court. The Respondent was again placed on probation for a term of three years, with home confinement re[534]*534strictions for the first six months (which period has been served). He was ordered to pay a reduced fine of $5,000, and required to pay the $100 special assessment.

In his motion the Respondent asserts that the amended sentence constitutes a substantial change in circumstances as the re-sentencing was based on a different analysis of the nature of the Respondent’s conduct. After review of the submissions of the Respondent and the reply memorandum submitted by Disciplinary Counsel, we deem that Respondent’s motion lacks merit.

Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration and/or Rehearing is hereby denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

806 A.2d 533, 2002 R.I. LEXIS 177, 2002 WL 31177483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-scungio-ri-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack