Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Giuseppe Ganci, Salvatore Catalano, Joseph Lamberti, Salvatore Mazzurco, Giovanni Ligammari, Cesare Bonventre, Baldassare Amato, Onofrio Catalano, Vincenzo Randazzo, Pietro Alfano, Emanuele Palazzola, Samuel Evola, Vito Badalamenti, Faro Lupo, Giuseppe Trupiano, Giuseppe Vitale, Giuseppe Soresi, Lorenzo Devardo, Giovanni Cangialosi, Adriano Corti, Philip Salamone, Salvatore Salamone, Salvatore Greco, Rosario Dispenza, Franco Della Torre, Leonardo Greco, Olivero Tognoli, Phillip Matassa, Salvatore Miniati, Frank Castronovo, Gaetano Mazzara, Calogero Lauricella, Francesco Polizzi, Benito Zito, Filippo Casamento, Giuseppe Baldinucci, Vito Roberto Palazzolo, and Salvatore Lamberti, Gaetano Badalamenti
Citations: 47 F.3d 72; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2373Docket: 352
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; February 6, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
Gaetano Badalamenti appeals the partial denial of his motion for sentence reduction under former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a). Initially sentenced in 1987 to a total of sixty years and fines for drug-related offenses, Badalamenti argues that imposing a concurrent sentence for conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 violates the Double Jeopardy Clause since he was also convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 848 for conducting a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE). The court finds this claim meritless, citing precedent that allows for both convictions without violating Double Jeopardy. The Second Circuit emphasizes its longstanding practice of combining sentences for § 846 and § 848 convictions, where the § 846 sentence is effectively subsumed by the § 848 conviction unless the latter is overturned. Consequently, the court vacates Badalamenti's sentence under § 846 while maintaining the conviction, concluding that further remand for resentencing is unnecessary given the lengthy sentence already imposed for the CCE conviction. The court affirms the conviction under § 848 but vacates the sentence under § 846, specifying that the § 846 sentence will only be reinstated if the § 848 sentence is vacated and not reinstated at a more severe level. The decision is affirmed in part and vacated in part.