DiNapoli v. United States

Background

Joseph DiNapoli filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure for asking a federal court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence imposed unlawfully. He also sought reconsideration of the court’s earlier denials of his requests for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The government opposed the applications, and DiNapoli filed a reply.

Section 2255 ruling

The court explained that Section 2255 relief is available for a constitutional violation, a lack of jurisdiction, or a fundamental legal or factual error causing a serious injustice. The court concluded that DiNapoli was actually seeking a sentence reduction rather than identifying a qualifying Section 2255 error. His limited references to due process and the Eighth Amendment did not explain what process he was denied or provide another basis for relief. The court also held that his sentence, even if it might exceed his life expectancy, was not cruel and unusual punishment.

Sentence-reduction reconsideration

Under Section 3582(c)(1)(A), a court may reduce a sentence when extraordinary and compelling reasons support a reduction, the applicable sentencing considerations support it, and the reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements. A person seeking reconsideration of an earlier denial must show an intervening change in law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice.

DiNapoli relied on his age, poor health, lack of violations while on pre-sentence release, and COVID-19 risks. The court stated that it had already considered his age and health when imposing a below-guidelines sentence and when denying earlier sentence-reduction requests. His medical records showed regular and thorough medical care, and his condition apparently did not require placement in a medical facility. The court also already knew about his compliance with pre-sentence release conditions.

The court noted that DiNapoli had served nearly nineteen months of his 52-month sentence, had been vaccinated against COVID-19, and was incarcerated at a facility where a serious outbreak appeared to have subsided. The court determined that these facts substantially reduced the COVID-19 risk. It further concluded that releasing him less than halfway through his sentence would undermine sentencing considerations, including the seriousness of the offense, respect for the law, just punishment, avoiding unwarranted disparities, and protecting the public. The court relied on its prior description of DiNapoli’s criminal history and concluded that he remained a danger to the community.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel denied the Section 2255 petition. To the extent the application sought reconsideration of the earlier denials of sentence reductions under Section 3582(c)(1)(A), the court also denied that application.