Eight-Level Increase

Vincent MarinoVincent M. Marino received an unlawful 24 years and two month enhancement (8 Offense Levels) for the June 16th, 1989 Salemme attempted murder, even though the jury found Marino NOT PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT of that charge depicted as predicate racketeering act A-2 (Salemme attempted murder) in Counts One RICO and Count Two RICO conspiracy, the court:

Judge: Nathaniel M. Gorton, with the urging of the government: Assistant U.S. Attorney’s: Jeffrey Auerhahn and Cynthia Ann Young, substantially enhanced Marino’s sentence an extra 24 years and two months to serve in Federal Prison on top of the 10 plus years with a total of 35 years to serve in prison, by the mere preponderance of the evidence according to the PUBLIC RECORD See United States v. Marino, CR-97-40009-NMG. (District of Massachusetts/Worcester):

Trial Transcripts Sentencing Transcript of Marino, dated April 13, 2000, at 3:30 P.M.In the United States District Court District of Massachusetts.BEFORE Judge: Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Court Judge District of Massachusetts.Government Attorneys: AUSA’S: Jeffrey Auerhahn and Cynthia Ann Young.

 Marino’s attorney: Robert Sheketoff.

Defendant: Vincent Michael Marino.

Cheryl Dahlstrom
Official Court Reporter
595 Main Street, Room 514
Worcester, Massachusetts
01608-2076
Mechanical Steno–Transcript by Computer.

See pages 1, 20-24.

With respect to objection No. 7, it relates to paragraph 29, and that is the base offense level for the second group, that is, Count one RICO Act A-2 (a) and A-2 (b) namely, the ATTEMPTED MURDER OF MR. SALEMME.

The objection, apparently, Mr. Sheketoff, is that the jury DID NOT CONVICT your client (Marino) of the predicate act. Is that basically the objection?

MR. SHEKETOFF: Right. Well, that’s the first objection because the Probation Department seems to think that–well, it’s hard to say, but yes, THE JURY DID NOT CONVICT HIM. We all know that. The question, then is do you find by a preponderance of the evidence.

THE COURT: And that means if I believe, by a preponderance of the evidence, Mr. Mele’s testimony, your client was involved in the Salemme shooting, Correct?

MR> SHEKETOFF: Yes.

THE COURT: Does the government wish to address that objection?

Mr. (AUSA) Auerhahn: no, other than to say I believe his–the evidence from Mr. Mele, as well as the corroborating evidence, clearly establishes, at least by a preponderance of the evidence, that he did, in fact, participate in that. And the case law is clear that even acquitted conduct, which we’re not dealing with here–NOT PROVEN is not the same as acquitted conduct–the Court can find–attribute with a defendant doing a guideline analysis, and the Court should with this particular predicate.

THE COURT: The Court does, in fact, find that this defendant (Marino), at least by a standard of preponderance of the evidence, DID PARTICIPATE IN THE ATTEMPTED MURDER OF MR. SALEMME in 1989; and therefore, under the OBJECTION to Paragraph 29, to the base offense level established for that group of crimes, is DENIED.And it is found to be 28 pursuant, again, to the Guidelines 2E1.1 and the related guidelines of 2A2.1 and 2A–yes, 2A2.1.

The next objection is No. 8, which is to Paragraph 30, and it objects because the defendant argues the injuries sustained by Mr. Salemme were neither permanent nor life-threatening.

Do you wish to address that further, Mr. Sheketoff?

MR. SHEKETOFF: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Does the government wish to address that?

MR. AUERHAHN: No, your Honor, other than, under the application notes, it seems that the injuries Mr. Salemme sustained would satisfy the requirements of the application note.

THE COURT: Not permanent or–were they permanent or life-threatening or both?

MR. AUERHAHN: Life-threatening. As far as I know, they are NOT PERMANENT. We saw him here. He didn’t seem to be hobbling, for example, in the same way Mr. Cirame was. They’re life-threatening given the nature where he was shot, how long he stayed in the hospital and such, and the number of times he was shot at, you know, the number of bullets shot at him as well.

THE COURT: The Objection No. 8 is denied. It is found that the victim, Mr. Salemme, susained life-threatening injuries; and therefore, a FOUR LEVEL INCREASE to the base offense level for that group of crimes is warranted under 2A2.1(b)(1)(A).

The next objection is No.9 to the following paragraph No. 31, and that is an objection to the finding or the recommendation by Probation that an additional FOUR LEVEL INCREASE is warranted because the offense.

The next objection is No. 9, to the following Paragraph No. 31, and that is an objection to the finding–or the recommendation by Probation that a FOUR-LEVEL INCREASE is warranted here because the offense–the ATTEMPTED MURDER OF MR. SALEMME–involved the offer or receipt of something of pecuniary value (Money) for the undertaking of the murder.

I have addressed this issue on many occasions before today. But do you wish to address that in any further sense, Mr. Sheketoff?

MR. SHEKETOFF: I just don’t think there was any evidence of it, your Honor.

THE COURT: Does the government wish to respond?

(The Government): MR. AUERHAHN: Your Honor, as we’ve said before, the purpose was to be in a position to collect envelopes. Even if there was NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF ENVELOPES BEING COLLECTED, that was the intention. It doesn’t have to be a shooting in exchange for money. It can be the expectation of receipt of money in the future.

THE COURT:  The Court, as in the past, does find that that element has been met, that there was a promise of some nature in the organized crime element of this crime; and therefore, the FOUR-LEVEL INCREASE is warranted pursuant to 2A2.1(b)(2). Objection No. 9 is, therefore, denied.

See United States v. Marino, CR-97-40009-NMG. (District of Massachusetts/Worcester)
Sentencing Transcripts Dated: April 13, 2000
In Front of United States District Court Judge: Nathaniel M. Gorton, District of Massachusetts.

Sentencing of Defendant: Vincent M. Marino

Although the court and the Defendant was not in possession of UNDER SEAL DOCUMENTS described in:
United States v. Salemme, 91 F.Supp.2d 141, 267-269 (exhibits: 188-247) (District of Massachusetts 1999)which held in relevant part that:

FBI agents: John J. Connolly Jr., Michael J. Buckley and James Ring, along with Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane Kottmyer, Chief of the New England Organized Crime Strike Force (and NOW a rewarded Suffolk Superior Court Judge in Boston, Massachusetts), instigated and fomented violence, specifically the June 16th, 1989 Salemme attempted murder and the June 1989 William “The Wild Guy” Grasso  murder, as the PUBLIC RECORDS so supports See Salemme, 91 F.Supp.2d page 151, 153, 171-174, 219, 262-311 (D.Mass.1999);:

United States v. Connolly (FBI agent), 341 F.3d 16-29 (1st Cir.2003);

State of Florida v. John J,. Connolly Jr. ( FBI agent), #___(September 22, 2008, Miami, Florida);

Marino v. Department of Justice, et al., civil action #12-cv-865-RMC. (District of Columbia, Washington) PENDING;

Marino v. United States Attorneys Office District of Massachusetts Boston, et al., civil action #12-cv-872-RMC. (District of Columbia, Washington) PENDING;

United States v. Marino, CR-97-40009-NMG. (D.Mass/Boston/Worcester);

United States v. Marino, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, #12-2253, #12-2324, #12-2384 (1st Cir.2012) PENDING, briefing order.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enlighten Yourself… “Where the willingness is great, the difficulties cannot be great. ” ~Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

%d bloggers like this: