Marino’s Motion under 18 USC SECTION 3553(a)(6)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON

United States of America Criminal Action #97-cr-40009-NMG.

June 25th, 2014

(Assistant United States Attorney’s: Jefferey Auerhahn and Cynthia Ann Young)

Plaintiff, Honorable: Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S.D.C.

v.

Vincent Michael Marino
Defendant.

 

MARINO REQUESTS PERMISSION TO FILE THE FOLLOWING:DEFENDANT:

MARINO’S MOTION UNDER 18 U.S.C. SECTION 3553(A)(6) DISPARITIES IN SENTENCE, CONCERNING SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT’S EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

Affidavit of: Vincent Michael Marino, via: Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 56(f):

(1) On April 13, 2000, this Court sentenced  Vincent M. Marino to serve 35 years in prison, on Count One: RICO (20 years), Count Two: RICO conspiracy (10 years), Count Three: Conspiracy to murder (5 years). to run consecutively with each other totaling 35 years to serve in prison.

Marino did not have any prior drug or violent convictions on his record, and also note that the only other p[predicate Count 30/Act-B Cocaine Conspiracy which validated Marino‘s Count One and Two convictions was dismissed by the government DURING MARINO‘S JURY TRIAL on September 28, 1998 (Document 581) and allowed by this Court on October 22, 1998 (Document date Oct. 22, 1998). See 97-cr-40009-NMG. (D.Mass).

However, thereafter it’s dismissal by both the government and the Court it was placed back on the VERDICT FORM in error which the Jury Marked Proven in both Counts One and Two.With the preclusion of Count 30/Act-B from the VERDICT FORM would essentially invalidate both Counts One and Two convictions and sentences against Marino.

[2] Marino was listed 10th on the indictment, out of 15 codefendants.

[3] MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

In order for Marino to prove a 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(6) argument as well as a Equal Protection argument under the 14th Amendment, Marino must meet the following criteria’s:

1. That Marino was intentionally treated differently from other codefendant and or similarly situated persons, see:

(a) Codefendant: Robert Carozza‘s (SENTENCE to 2 YEARS) according to the government Carozza ordered 3 murders from prison, 7 shootings and 1 stabbing and the conspiracy to murder 14 others and was the leader of the RICO conspiracy from 1989 -1994;

(b) Codefendant: Micheal Romano Sr‘s (SENTENCED to 22 years) according to the government took orders from Carozza and killed Souza;

(c) Codefendant:  Anthony Ciampi‘s (SENTENCED TO 18 YEARS) according to the government killed Devlin;

(d) Codefendant: Anthony Allan Diaz’s (SENTENCED TO 13 YEARS) concurrent with a armed bank robbery and shoot-out with the police during it, and also according to the government killed Strazulla);

(e) Codefendant: Enrico “RICO”Ponzo‘s (SENTENCED TO 28 YEARS) according to the government and the Jury’s Verdicts was convicted of the June 16th, 1989 Francis Salemme Sr. attempted murder and 17 other counts and was a armed fugitive for over 17 years and ran a drug business making millions of dollars.

The above Five Counts of Disparity in Sentences compared to Marino‘s sentenced of 35 years, convicted of two predicate acts Drugs (which was dismissed during jury trial in 1998 by this Court and government see Documents 581 and date: Oct. 22, 1998) and conspiracy to murder on December 22, 1999.For the Record, the conspiracy to murder charge sentence is a maximum of ten years, NOT 35 years.

The above paragraphed a-e Codefendants similarly situated individuals; and 2. that the disparate treatment was either (a) “irrational and wholly arbitrary” of (b) motivated by animus, see supra.

See Assoko v. City of New York, 539 F.Supp.2d 728, 734-35 (S.D.N.Y.2008).

Marino,has established that no rational person could regard Marino‘s circumstances supra to differ from those (a-e) Codefendants of a comparator (Codefendants: Carozza, Romano, Ciampi, Diaz and Ponzo, supra) to a degree that would justify the differential treatment on the basis of a legitimate government or judicial policy.In-fact the above Codefendants culpability was much more severe than Marino‘s.

See Ruston v. Town of Skaneateles, 610 F.3d 55, 59-60 (2d Cir.2010).

Marino was also found NOT PROVEN of the Francis Salemme  attempted murder.

CONCLUSION:

WHEREFORE, Marino requests the following relief from this Court:

GRANT, this instant Motion under 18 U.S.C.Section 3553(a)(6), and under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment;thus ALLOW, Marino permission to file this instant motion;

REMAND, this case back to the district court to resentence Marino to reflect either a concurrent sentence concerning Counts One, Two , and Three to 20 years and or resentence Marino to a total of 20 years and 1 year supervised release, to prevent disparities as seen supra in similarly situated persons;

ORDER, Marino‘s resentence to be facilitated telephonically to save both the Court’s and governmental’s scarce and precious resources;or ORDER, Fifteen years off of Marino‘s original sentence.The above requests is to further the administration of justice.Signed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1746, under the penalties of perjury the above and the following to be true, correct and complete. Pro-Se.

Respectfully Submitted By
Defendant/Petitioner/Affiant:
___________________________
Vincent Michael Marino
14431-038
FCI McDowell
P.O. Box 1009
Welch, West Virginia
24801

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: