United States v. Reynolds

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: October 17, 2018
• Docket: 17-2856-cr
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

17-2856-cr United States v. Reynolds

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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of October, two thousand eighteen.

Present: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., GUIDO CALABRESI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v. 17-2856

Joseph Bissada, AKA Quaddafi, Christopher Labate, AKA Chris AM, Robert Patterson, Joseph Pontecorvo, AKA Joe Pont, Michael Pontecorvo, AKA Michael Pont, Joseph Benanti, Charles Calco, Joseph Calco, Fabritzio Defrancisci, AKA Fabrizzio, Joseph Dellatorre, AKA Little Joey, Anthony Gonzalez, AKA Gonzo, Christian Ludwigsen, AKA Chris Paciello, AKA the Binger, Anthony Spero, Dean Benasillo, Michael Yammine, James Calandra, William Galloway,

Defendants, THOMAS REYNOLDS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________

For Defendant-Appellant: Bernard V. Kleinman, Somers, NY.

For Appellee: David C. James, Andrey Spektor, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, for Richard P. Donoghue, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.

Appeal from the September 6, 2017 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of New York (Weinstein, J.), denying Defendant-Appellant’s sentencing motion.

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

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The district court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and its factual findings are

reviewed for clear error. United States v. Fuller, 426 F.3d 556, 562 (2d Cir. 2005). We assume the

parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on

appeal.

We have considered all of Defendant-Appellant’s arguments and find them to be without

merit. For substantially the reasons outlined in the district court’s memorandum order, we

AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk