United States v. Stanley Reppucci

891 F.2d 296, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 18493
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 6, 1989
Docket89-10025
StatusUnpublished

This text of 891 F.2d 296 (United States v. Stanley Reppucci) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Stanley Reppucci, 891 F.2d 296, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 18493 (9th Cir. 1989).

Opinion

891 F.2d 296

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Stanley REPPUCCI, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 89-10025, 89-10027 and 89-10028.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 5, 1989*.
Decided Dec. 6, 1989.

Before SKOPIL, FLETCHER, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Stanley Reppucci appeals the denial without explanation of his Rule 35 motion requesting a sentence reduction based on the disparity between his sentence and that of a later-sentenced, more culpable co-conspirator. We affirm.

FACTS

The Indictments

Defendant Stanley Reppucci was charged in three indictments, each with several counts. The first involved a marijuana purchase in Florida; it was transferred to Nevada under Rule 20. The second concerned an attempted marijuana purchase in Nevada, and the third, transactions in counterfeit watch dials.

The first indictment resulted from a two-year Florida FBI and sheriff's department investigation. Reppucci and two codefendants, Anthony Guarnieri, a caporegime in the Buffalo mafia, and Anthony Pelosi, purchased 300 pounds of marijuana from undercover officers in Florida and sold it in Massachusetts.

Later, Guarnieri and Reppucci tried to obtain more marijuana from a Nevada undercover marijuana import business, but the deal never materialized. The second indictment concerns this attempted transaction.

Later the same year, Guarnieri arranged to receive blank replica watch dials and to counterfeit them with high-dollar brand watch names. Reppucci was involved in conversations arranging transportation and helped Guarnieri deliver two hundred counterfeit dials to undercover agents. These actions are charged in the third indictment.

All parties agreed that Guarnieri was the most culpable participant in these activities; the government identified Reppucci as the second most culpable. The evidence also indicates that Reppucci behaved like a novice in the transactions and demonstrated unfamiliarity with drug dealing. The government proposed several deals Reppucci claimed to be able to pull off, but he usually was unable to get contraband that the government agents had requested. The Florida marijuana deal and the counterfeit watch deal were the only ones that ever produced anything.

Reppucci's sentencing

Reppucci pled guilty in an all-encompassing plea bargain to three counts--one under each of the indictments: conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, use of a communication facility to facilitate distribution of a controlled substance, and trafficking in counterfeit goods. The maximum sentence was 15 years.

When Reppucci first appeared for sentencing, he did not expect to appear before the judge who was on the bench. His attorney explained to the judge that although he still wanted his client to accept the plea bargain, Reppucci was not prepared to go forward with the plea then because he had expected a different judge. The attorney attempted to characterize the difference in judge as simply a surprise that Reppucci needed to assimilate. The judge responded that he was not offended, but that it would trouble him if Reppucci were "judge shopping."

Two days later, Reppucci returned to court for sentencing pursuant to the plea agreement. He received a nine-year prison sentence on the Florida marijuana count and two concurrent five-year probation sentences on the other two counts to run consecutive to the nine-year prison term.

The presentence report indicated that Reppucci had good family relationships with his parents, wife, and step-daughters. He had been significantly involved with bookmaking. Reppucci grew up in a family where bookmaking was accepted practice; and he did not feel that it was wrong, in spite of his run-ins with the justice system. Reppucci had been convicted previously of promoting gambling, petty larceny, conspiracy to operate an illegal gambling business (twice), and promoting gambling. Although records are unavailable for the first two charges, Reppucci plead guilty to the final three.

The sentencing report indicates that Reppucci felt remorse for his involvement in the current criminal activities and that he believed it was the first wrongdoing in his life. He got involved because of financial difficulty. The presentence report, however, concludes that Reppucci's current criminal activity demonstrates that his previous contacts with the justice system had not created any respect for the law and that he therefore should receive more than probation. At the time of his sentencing, Reppucci and his wife had a new legitimate business that was doing well.

In the sentencing hearing, the court approved of Reppucci's family relationships and agreed that he clearly had not been previously involved in drugs. He also agreed that Reppucci's involvement was as his attorney characterized it: naive and limited. He asserted that Reppucci's circumstances were indeed different than his codefendants', that he was intelligent and had a good family background, in spite of the family's acceptance of bookmaking. The judge continued, "I have a little bit the feeling that where much is given, much is required; and I think society has reason to expect a little more from a Repucci [sic ] who's had some opportunities and who is blessed with some skills and intellectual talents." The court asserted that Reppucci had shown "a disposition to engage in illegal conduct and now to engage in what most consider to be a really diabolical business." Finally, the court told Reppucci that, no matter what Reppucci thought, "gaming illegally is breaking the law."

Codefendants' sentencing

Guarnieri was convicted of the same three counts as Reppucci plus a fourth in New York involving the manufacturing of silencers. Guarnieri's Florida marijuana case was not transferred, and the Florida court sentenced him to two years in prison. In a plea agreement on the Nevada charges, he and the prosecutor had agreed that his Florida sentence would represent the maximum Nevada sentence. The same judge who had sentenced Reppucci "reluctantly accepted" this agreement. After Reppucci had already been sentenced, the judge sentenced Guarnieri to two years incarceration on the Nevada marijuana charge, to run concurrently with his Florida sentence, and five years probation for the counterfeit charge to run consecutively to the prison sentence. In the New York case, Guarnieri was sentenced to two years to run concurrent to his other prison terms. For the four convictions, then, Guarnieri would serve a total of two years in prison.

Pelosi was convicted in both marijuana cases and was sentenced to two years imprisonment and five years probation thereafter. Another codefendant in the Nevada marijuana case received probation despite having the most extensive arrest and conviction record of any of the defendants (over twelve felony convictions).

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

Related

Grannis v. Ordean
234 U.S. 385 (Supreme Court, 1914)
Townsend v. Burke
334 U.S. 736 (Supreme Court, 1948)
Armstrong v. Manzo
380 U.S. 545 (Supreme Court, 1965)
Williams v. Illinois
399 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court, 1970)
United States v. Tucker
404 U.S. 443 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Dorszynski v. United States
418 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Mathews v. Eldridge
424 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Gardner v. Florida
430 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1977)
Solem v. Helm
463 U.S. 277 (Supreme Court, 1983)
United States v. Rosenberg
195 F.2d 583 (Second Circuit, 1952)
Anthony Marcella v. United States
285 F.2d 322 (Ninth Circuit, 1961)
United States v. Juan Lopez-Gonzales
688 F.2d 1275 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
891 F.2d 296, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 18493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stanley-reppucci-ca9-1989.