Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 7709

U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

Eastern District of New York
DL:EAG/AL

271 Cadman Plaza East

Brooklyn, New York 11201

January 15, 2015

By ECF
Honorable Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge
United States District Court
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Re:

United States v. Giuseppe Destafano

Criminal Docket No. 11-30 (KAM)

Dear Judge Matsumoto:

The government respectfully submits this letter in connection with the
defendant Giuseppe Destefanos request dated January 5, 2015 to travel to the state of New
Jersey to marry his fianc on December 31, 2017. The government cannot now say that it
consents to such a request to travel more than two years from today and submits that the
defendants request should be denied without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
The defendant previously pled guilty to a racketeering conspiracy, including
several crimes of violence as predicate racketeering acts, and on July 25, 2013, the Court
sentenced him to serve a term of imprisonment of 50 months imprisonment, a $50,000
forfeiture judgment, a $100 special assessment and three years of supervised release,
including a condition that he be subject to a curfew for a six-month period. (A copy of the
governments sentencing memorandum setting forth the conduct committed by the defendant
is attached and incorporated by reference.) On October 25, 2013, the defendant selfsurrendered to the Federal Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland to serve that
term of imprisonment. The Bureau of Prisons website indicates that Destefano is scheduled
to be released on June 4, 2017, which apparently assumes that Destefano will receive a 15%
reduction in his sentence based on good time credit.

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 7710

DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, the defendants request to travel is not yet ripe and
accordingly should be denied. Significantly, a representative from the Bureau of Prisons has
advised that the defendants full-term release date is December 17, 2017, at which time he
will still be subject to a curfew for a six-month period. It is only by assuming that he will
receive good time credit that the defendant is able to state that he is scheduled to be released
on June 4, 2017. Because the defendant is not guaranteed to receive his good time credit, it
is too early to determine the date on which he will be released and when his six-month
curfew will be completed.
While it is of course true that the defendants supervised release conditions,
including the curfew for a six-month period, may have an adverse toll on the defendants
family members and friends, just as terms of imprisonment often do, that was a consideration
known to the defendant when he knowingly acted as an associate of the Colombo organized
crime family of La Cosa Nostra (LCN). The current request is particularly inappropriate
given that the defendant has served less than half of his term of imprisonment.
The government also submits that the motion should be denied at this time
because the defendant remains a danger to the community, and the government probably will
not be able to adequately supervise the defendant were he to attend the wedding. In
particular, it will be important to ensure that the defendant does not violate the terms of his
supervised release by associating with members or associates of LCN at the function itself.
Cf. United States v. Millan, 4 F.3d 1039, 1049 (2d Cir. 1993) (Home detention and
electronic monitoring at best elaborately replicate a detention facility without the confidence
of security such a facility instills. If the government does not provide staff to monitor
compliance extensively, protection of the community would be left largely to the word of
[the defendants] that [they] will obey the conditions. (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted)).
The government further objects to the defendants request to travel to attend a
lavish wedding celebration for himself and his fianc in light of the outstanding forfeiture
judgment against the defendant. According to one website, www.weddingwire.com, the
average catering fee for a wedding at the location where the defendant seeks to celebrate his
wedding is $145 per person. Yet, the defendant has not yet made a single payment to the
outstanding $50,000 forfeiture judgment.
Finally, the government notes that, in the attachments to his January 5, 2015
request, the defendant suggests that he also would like permission to travel to the Caribbean.
For the same reasons set forth above, the government opposes this request.

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360 Filed 01/15/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 7711

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the government submits that the defendants request
should be denied without prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
LORETTA E. LYNCH
United States Attorney
By:

cc:

Clerk of Court (KAM) (by ECF)

Giuseppe Destefano (by First Class Mail)
#59203-053
FCI Fort Dix
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, NJ 08640

/s/
Elizabeth Geddes
Allon Lifshitz
Assistant U.S. Attorneys

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:

7712
U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

Eastern District of New York
EAG/AL
F.#2010R00153

271 Cadman Plaza East

Brooklyn, New York 11201

May 15, 2013

By Hand Delivery and ECF
The Honorable Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Re:

United States v. Giuseppe Destefano

Criminal Docket No. 11-30 (KAM)

Dear Judge Matsumoto:

The government respectfully submits this letter in
anticipation of sentencing in the above-captioned case, which is
scheduled for July 25, 2013. For the reasons set forth below,
the government respectfully asks the Court to sentence the
defendant within the advisory Guidelines range determined by the
Court.
I.

Background

On January 12, 2011, a grand jury in the Eastern

District of New York returned an indictment charging the
defendant and 38 others with a variety of offenses, including
racketeering conspiracy, based on their leadership of, membership
in and association with the Colombo organized crime family of La
Cosa Nostra (the Colombo crime family and LCN, respectively).
(Docket Entry No. 1.) In the indictment, the defendant was
alleged to be an associate within the Colombo crime family, and
he was charged in Count One with racketeering conspiracy, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), including the following
predicate racketeering acts (RAs): extortionate collection of
credit conspiracy (RA 21), extortionate extension of credit
conspiracy (RA 22) and two extortion conspiracies (RAs 28 and
37). (Id. 16-18, 55, 76, 82, 99-102.) He was also charged in
Counts 17 and 18 with the extortionate collection of credit
conspiracy alleged in RA 21, in Counts 19 and 20 with the
extortionate extension of credit conspiracy alleged in RA 22 and
in Count 42 with being a felon in possession of a firearm. On

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:

7713

January 20, 2011, the indictment was unsealed and the defendant
was arrested. (Docket Entries Nos. 2, 14.)
On July 22, 2011, the defendant pled guilty, pursuant
to a plea agreement, before the Court (Docket Entry No. 425.)
The defendant pled guilty to Count One and allocuted to
Racketeering Acts 21, 22, 28 and 37. (Presentence Investigation
Report (PSR) 1-5.) Each of these racketeering acts is
described below.
A.

Racketeering Act 21: Extortionate Collection of

Credit - Gambino Individual #2

Between February 2008 and June 2008, Destefano,

together with co-defendants Daniel Capaldo and Larry Sessa, also
known as Fat Larry, and others, agreed to participate in the
use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an
extension of credit from an individual who had incurred
significant gambling debt (the individual is identified in the
indictment and herein as Gambino Individual #2).
In or about 2007, then-Colombo family associates Thomas
McLaughlin and Capaldo, who at the time were both incarcerated,
lent Destefano $10,000 at two points, or two percent interest
per week. Because both McLaughlin and Capaldo were incarcerated,
a relative of Capaldo gave the money to Destefano. Destefano
thereafter lent the money to Gambino Individual #2 at three
points, or three percent interest per week. Gambino Individual
#2 ultimately fell behind on making the interest payments.
Destefano repeatedly used extortionate means to collect
the money owed by Gambino Individual #2. For example, Destefano
told Gambino Individual #2 that he (Destefano) had borrowed the
money from individuals affiliated with organized crime and as a
result Destefano had to carry a gun. Destefano also expressly
threatened Gambino Individual #2 that he would shoot Gambino
Individual #2 if he failed to repay the debt. Significantly, on
several occasions, Destefano demanded that Gambino Individual #2
get into Destefanos car and would not let him leave until
Gambino Individual #2 convinced a family member or friend to lend
money to Gambino Individual #2 to repay Destefano. On another
occasion, Destefano showed Gambino Individual #2 what appeared to
be a gun and pointed it at the knees of Gambino Individual #2.
On still another occasion, Destefano punched Gambino Individual
#2 in the face. Destefano also went to the workplace of Gambino
Individual #2 in an attempt to collect money from Gambino
Individual #2. Gambino Individual #2 finally told someone who

-2-

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:

7714

was affiliated with the Gambino organized crime family about the
situation and ultimately left the area.
On February 23, 2008, a cooperating witness (CW-1)
made a consensual recording of a meeting that he had with thenColombo family associate Sessa. During the February 23, 2008
meeting, Sessa stated that three individuals, who were associates
of McLaughlin, had pistol whipped an individual in Staten Island
(i.e., Gambino Individual #1) because he had failed to make
timely payments on a loan extended by someone named Joseph
Puccio (an apparent reference to Destefano, who is also known as
Pooch), and that following the assault, Gambino Individual #2
had contacted Gambino crime family soldier Ernie Grillo for
assistance. Sessa further explained that Grillo had contacted
Destefano but refused to deal with him because he (Destefano) was
not an inducted member of La Cosa Nostra.
At his guilty plea proceeding on July 22, 2011,
Destefano admitted that he, extorted [Gambino Individual #2] to
collect money. (July 22, 2011 Tr. 21-22). He further admitted
that he agreed with others that force or threats of force or
harm would be employed in order to collect [the] debt. (Id. at
23).
B.

Racketeering Act 22: Extortionate Extension of Credit

Between February 2008 and June 2009, Destefano

conspired to make, and made, one or more extortionate extensions
of credit. Specifically, on June 8, 2009, Destefano told another
cooperating witness (CW-2) that he had borrowed an additional
sum of money, approximately $4,000, from co-defendant Capaldo so
that Destefano could lend it out to others. Destefano explained
that he had lent the money to several individuals, including an
individual in New Jersey, and that he collected vig, or
interest, payments on a weekly basis.
C.

Racketeering Act 28: Extortion Conspiracy

In or about October 2009, Destefano and co-defendant

Anthony Russo, who at the time was a soldier in the Colombo crime
family, conspired to extort a pizzeria owner in New Jersey who
owed money to Colombo crime family member Anthony Stropoli.
Stropoli owns a fish business, Ultimate Seafood, and periodically
Russo and others assisted Stropoli in collecting money owed on
outstanding bills.
On October 9, 2009, Russo told CW-2 that he was looking
for co-defendants Jack Rizzocascio and Gaetano Gallo to accompany
-3-

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:

7715

Destefano to New Jersey to extort someone. On October 11, 2009,

at the wake for Joseph Savareses stepdaughter, CW-2 asked Russo
about the New Jersey extortion plot and Russo mentioned
Stropolis name. Russo told CW-2 that Destefano was supposed to
conduct surveillance of the target of the extortion that week and
that maybe he (Russo) and CW-2 would supervise the situation when
they were ready. On October 20, 2009, CW-2 reiterated his offer
to Russo assist him with the job in New Jersey, but Russo advised
CW-2 that Destefano was going to handle it that week. Destefano
commented to CW-2 that he might check it out that day.
Thereafter, Russo, Stropoli and Destefano, all of whom
are large in physical stature, drove to a pizzeria off of Route
1,9 in New Jersey. When they arrived, they asked for the owner,
but were told that he was not there. Stropoli then placed a call
to the owners cell phone. The owner ultimately paid
approximately $400 and gave a check for the remaining amount
owed.
At his guilty plea proceeding, Destefano admitted the
following:
Destefano:

I went to the individuals

restaurant knowingly that I
was going to extort him, but
knowingly that I was with the
wrong company and things took
place, yes.

Court:

When you say things took

place, what took place?

Destefano:

When it came about that the

person was going to be
extorted, I was there and
agreed to stay.

Court:

You agreed to stay in the

restaurant?

Destefano:

Yeah.

-4-

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:

7716

Court:

Was part of that reason that

you agreed to stay there was
to convey to this individual
that if he didnt deliver
money or property that you or
others with you in your
agreement would hurt him or
hurt his business?

Destefano:

Yes.

(July 22, 2011 Tr. 26).

D.

Racketeering Act 37: Extortion Conspiracy

Between July 2010 and August 2010, Destefano, together

with co-defendants Joseph Savarese, an inducted member of the
Colombo crime family, and Russo, who by that time was an acting
captain in the Colombo crime family, conspired and attempted to
extort an individual identified in the indictment as John Doe #14
the right to operate an illegal gambling business. Specifically,
Russo, Savarese and Destefano assaulted an individual to prevent
him from keeping open a gambling club that Russo and Savarese
deemed too close to gambling clubs that they operated.
On July 17, 2010, a third cooperating witness (CW-3)
advised Russo that an individual had opened a competing card club
on Kings Highway across from the Del Rio Diner, and that a few of
CW-3s players had started playing at the Kings Highway club
instead of CW-3s club, from which Russo and Savarese profited.
Russo told CW-3 that he wanted to crack the individual. Russo
then made a series of phone calls, after which he commented,
Its getting done tonight, I told Tommy [McLaughlin] to put on
his dancing shoes. Joey [Savarese] and Fat Larry [Sessa] are
coming in and we will tear him up. I dont care if we have to
hunt him all night. . . . Crack him in the fucking mouth and give
him a beat down. Russo explained that he had learned that the
individual who was operating the gambling establishment was
around Sonny Juliano, a captain in the Gambino crime family of
LCN, and sarcastically commented, Is Sonny going to make up the
$2,000 I lost that night. . . . I am going on a tear. Russo
also commented, Ill crack [the individual who operated the
gambling club] for opening a game.
Later that evening, Russo, Savarese, Destefano and
others met at Silhouette Lounge in Brooklyn, New York. Savarese
told the group that he had co-defendant Louis Venturelli contact
the individual who operated the competing gambling club to
-5-

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:

7717

arrange for the individual to meet Savarese and CW-3 about the
Friday night card games. After Savarese and the individual had
an initial discussion, Savarese, Russo and Destefano began to
physically assault the individual. Savarese pulled out a knife,
but did not use it. The individual then ran out of the bar.
Following the assault, the group talked about their respective
roles in the assault. On a consensual recording made by CW-2,
Destefano bragged that he had punched him [John Doe #14] in the
head.
At his guilty plea proceeding, Destefano admitted the
following:
Destefano:

Yes. I, together with others,

extorted the individual.

Court:

All right. So, did you make an

agreement with this person
that you were going to go and
either steal property or take
property? This particular
racketeering act involves an
illegal gambling business?

Destefano:

I believe it involved an
illegal gambling business,
yes.

Court:

Did you attempt to take that

business through the means of
instilling fear that if that
business was not provided to
you or others within your
agreement that physical injury
to some person would occur or
damage to property would
occur?

Destefano:

I had no part in that

business, your Honor, but I
was there and did bodily,
physically assault him.
* * *

Court:

Was the purpose of that

assault to try to obtain the
illegal gambling business from
-6-

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:

7718

that person, or some other

property of value?
Destefano:

I was with my friends and the

man got assaulted and I
assisted my friends in
assaulting a man.

Court:

Was there a reason for the

assault, sir?

Destefano:

From what I come to

understand, it was over a
gambling business.
* * *

Government:

At some point during the

course of the assault, did you
come to learn what it was that
your friends were trying to
obtain from this individual?

Destefano:

Through their conversation

before he was assaulted, yes,
I did.

Government:

And you continued to engage in

this conduct and agreed to
further it; is that correct?

Destefano:

Yes, I did.

(July 22, 2011 Tr. 28-30).

II.

Discussion

The government respectfully submits that, in this case,

a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range is appropriate in
light of all relevant factors, including the nature and
characteristics of the offense, the history and characteristics
of the defendant, and the need for the sentence to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to
provide just punishment, to afford adequate deterrence and to
protect the public.

-7-

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:

7719

A.

Legal Standard

The Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory.

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 258-60 (2005). However,
the Supreme Court held in Booker that sentencing courts must
consider the Guidelines in formulating an appropriate sentence.
Id. In Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), the Supreme
Court set forth the procedure for sentencing courts to follow in
light of Booker:
[A] district court should begin all sentencing
proceedings by correctly calculating the
applicable Guidelines range. As a matter of
administration and to secure nationwide
consistency, the Guidelines should be the
starting point and the initial benchmark.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 49 (citation omitted). Next, a district court
should consider all of the 3553(a) factors to determine
whether they support the sentence requested by a party. In so
doing, [a district court] may not presume that the Guidelines
range is reasonable. [A district court] must make an
individualized assessment based on the facts presented. Id. at
49-50 (citation and footnote omitted).
B.

The Guidelines Range Is 46 to 57 Months

As an initial matter, the government submits that the

defendants criminal history category is III not II as set
forth in the PSR. It is undisputed that three criminal history
points apply for the defendants prior federal conviction in 2002
involving extortion and operating an illegal gambling business.
(PSR 88). The government submits that two additional points
apply because the defendant committed the instant offense during
the three-year term of supervised release that he served between
September 2003 and September 2006. As set forth in the PSR, the
defendant committed the offenses that resulted in the 2002
conviction as a member of the crew of Benjamin Castellazzo, who
at the time held the position of a captain in the Colombo crime
family. (PSR 89). That is, the defendant was a party to the
same racketeering conspiracy when he committed those crimes as he
was when he committed the crime to which he pleaded guilty in the
instant case, i.e., a racketeering conspiracy, and at no time in
between did the defendant withdraw from the conspiracy. See
United States v. Pizzonia, 577 F.3d 455, 459 (2d Cir. 2009) (a
racketeering conspiracy, like any other conspiracy, is presumed
to continue until it achieves its criminal object, and the object
of a racketeering conspiracy is to conduct the affairs of a
-8-

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:

7720

charged enterprise through a pattern of racketeering).

Accordingly, the defendant committed the instant crime while he
was serving his term of supervised release, and two additional
criminal history points apply.
The government submits that the adjusted offense level
under the Guidelines is a level 21, which is predicated on the
following Guidelines calculation, which was set forth in the plea
agreement and to which the defendant stipulated:
Racketeering Act 21
(Extortionate Collection of Credit - Gambino Individual #2)
Base Offense Level ( 2E2.1(a))

20

Restraint of victim ( 2E2.1(b)(3)(B))

+2

Total:

22

Racketeering Act 22
(Extortionate Extension of Credit Conspiracy)
Base Offense Level ( 2E2.1(a))

20

Total:

20

Racketeering Act 28 (Extortion Conspiracy)

Base Offense Level ( 2B3.2(a))

18

Plus: Express or implied threat of bodily injury

( 2B3.2(b)(1))

+2

Total:

20

Racketeering Act 37
(Extortion Conspiracy/Extortion Attempt - John Doe #14)
Base Offense Level ( 2B3.2(a))

18

Plus: Express or implied threat of bodily injury

( 2B3.2(b)(1))

+2

Total:

20

Multiple Racketeering Act Analysis ( 3D1.4)

Highest Adjusted Offense Level
-9-

22

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:

7721

Units:
Racketeering Act 21 ( 3D1.4(a))

Racketeering Act 22 ( 3D1.4(a))

Racketeering Act 28 ( 3D1.4(a))

Racketeering Act 37 ( 3D1.4(a))

Total Units:

Levels Added:

Adjusted Offense Level

Adjusted Offense Level

26

Less: Acceptance of responsibility

-3

Less: Global resolution ( 5K2.0)

-2

Total:

21

This level carries a range of imprisonment of 46 to 57 months,

assuming that the defendant falls within Criminal History
Category III.1
C.

A Sentence Within the Guidelines Range Is

Appropriate In This Case

Based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a),

a sentence within the Guidelines range determined by the Court is

The Probation Department determined that, after

applying a two-level reduction based on the global resolution,
the total offense level is 23. (PSR 157.) The level
determined by the Probation Department is higher than the level
set forth in the plea agreement primarily because of enhancements
the Probation Department applies to certain racketeering acts.
While certain of the enhancements may be factually supportable -Gambino Individual #2 was punched in the face (PSR 31, 32, 51,
58) and a knife was brandished against John Doe #14 (PSR 71) -the enhancements were not contemplated when the parties entered
the plea agreement, and the government submits that the offense
level set forth in the plea agreement should apply.
-10-

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:

7722

appropriate in this case, and a more lenient sentence is not

warranted.
1.

The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

The defendant has been convicted of racketeering

conspiracy, including, as racketeering acts, conspiracies to make
extortionate extensions of credit, to use extortionate means to
collect extensions of credit, and to commit extortion, all in
connection with the Colombo family. These are serious crimes
that warrant a serious punishment. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1).
First, the Colombo family is a dangerous criminal
enterprise that uses violence, including murder, to further its
interests. (PSR 11-13.) The defendants criminal association
with the Colombo family reflects his commitment to its violent
goals and enabled him to commit the racketeering acts to which he
admitted. For example, when a loanshark customer failed to
timely make a payment, the violent reputation of the Colombo
family, and specifically the Colombo family members to whom the
defendant reported, enabled the defendant to obtain payment by
extortion, that is, through the credible threat of violence.
Significantly, the defendant himself did not hesitate
to engage in violence and the violence in which he engaged
towards Gambino Individual #2 in particular cannot be
understated. He threatened the individual at gunpoint, assaulted
the individual and even kidnaped the individual -- all to obtain
repayment of a loanshark loan. The toll this violence had on the
individual extended to the individuals family members and
friends who often had to loan him money so that the individual
could return home. Destefano also engaged in similar violence
when he participated in the violent assault on John Doe #14.
In light of the foregoing, the government respectfully
submits that the nature and circumstances of the offenses warrant
a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range.
2.

The Defendants History and Characteristics

The defendants history and characteristics indicate

that he is committed to a life of crime, that a sentence within
the Guidelines range is appropriate, and that a more lenient
sentence is not. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1).
Although the defendant is only 35 years old, he is, by
his own admission, a long-time associate of organized crime, and
he has prior federal conviction for crimes he committed with the
-11-

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:

7723

Colombo crime family. Significantly, in 2000, the defendant was

convicted of extortion, the very same crime for which he is now
facing sentencing, and operating an illegal gambling business, a
staple business of organized crime. Furthermore, the defendants
actions captured on numerous consensual recordings make clear
that the defendant is committed to using violence to earn money
and has the means to do so.
In addition to the significant criminal activity set
forth above, in May 2010, the defendant, who by then had
sustained a felony conviction, sold a .44 caliber Smith & Wesson
revolver for $1,240 to a cooperating witness, another felon,
further evidencing that the defendant has access to firearms. (A
copy of a photograph of the revolver is attached as Exhibit A.)
That same day, Destefano offered to get the witness a .9
millimeter handgun with a 22-round magazine that had been
converted into a fully automatic gun. Destefano also advised
that he had kept a similar pistol - but with a smaller magazine
at home for himself.
Notwithstanding his egregious crimes, Destefano submits
that a non-incarceratory sentence is warranted in light of his
family circumstances and specifically as a result of his mother
having been diagnosed with lymphoma. While the government is
sympathetic to Destefanos family circumstances, they do not
warrant leniency in this particular case given the repeated
opportunities afforded to Destefano by the court system and the
choices that Destefano nonetheless made. Destefano was fully
aware of his mothers dire circumstances when he continued to
associate with the Colombo crime family and when he committed the
various extortionate crimes. Furthermore, at his sentencing in
2002, Destefanos counsel argued that Destefano was his mothers
sole support. (United States v. Destefano, 00 CR 840 (ILG)
(E.D.N.Y.), Transcript of Sentencing dated February 6, 2002
(2002 Stg. Tr.) (attached as Ex. B) at 4). Yet, despite his
understanding of his role in his mothers life, he chose to
affiliate himself with the Colombo crime family and to commit
very serious and violent crimes in connection with the family.
He should not now be allowed to capitalize on his mothers
condition. Finally, and significantly, the sole support for the
assertion that the defendants mother relies on him is the
defendants own self-serving claim to that effect. The defendant
specifically requested that the Probation not contact his mother,
and the mothers letter to the Court does not state that the
defendant is her only possible source of financial support,
instead carefully noting that he is my provider financially and
is a source of emotional support. (PSR 99; Def.s Stg. Ltr.
Ex. D). Therefore, the Court should be reluctant to make any
-12-

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:

7724

finding regarding the extent to which the defendants mother

relies on him, and, in any event, in light of the defendants
sentencing arguments in 2002 and subsequent choices, should
accord that factor little to no weight.
For the same reasons, the Court should reject, or
accord little to no weight, to the defendants arguments based on
his fiancee. (Def.s Stg. Ltr. at 10.) The defendant presumably
knew when he committed his crimes that he intended to get
married, and therefore should not benefit from his stated
intention to do so. In addition, the Court should not credit his
assertion that he and his fiancee will move away from New York
and the defendants childhood friends if the Court imposes a noncustodial sentence. (Id.) If the defendant had any interest in
ceasing his commission of crimes, he could have moved away at any
time, including after his 2002 conviction based on committing
crimes with the Colombo crime family. Similarly, the defendants
purported extreme remorse (id.) is difficult to credit in light
of the fact that he committed the crimes in this case despite
sustaining a conviction in 2002 for highly similar conduct.
Based upon these facts, the government respectfully
submits that the defendants history and characteristics indicate
that a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range is
appropriate in this case.
3.

Reflecting the Seriousness of the Offenses,

Promoting Respect for the Law and
Providing Just Punishment

A sentencing within the advisory Guidelines range is

necessary to reflecting the seriousness of the offense, promote
respect for the law and providing just punishment. 18 U.S.C.
3553(a)(2)(A). As noted above, the defendants offenses are
serious crimes that are critical to the success of organized
crime families and that merit a serious punishment. In addition,
by engaging in a life of crime under the auspices of the Colombo
crime family -- after he has been convicted of similar crimes -the defendant has demonstrated that he has little respect for the
law. A sentence below the advisory Guidelines range would
therefore be insufficient to serve these important purposes of
sentencing.
D.

Affording Deterrence and Protecting the Public

The sentence must afford adequate deterrence to

criminal conduct and protect the public from further crimes of
the defendant. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(B) and (C). Under
-13-

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:

7725

section 3553(a)(2)(B), there are two major considerations:

specific and general deterrence. United States v. Davis, No.
08-CR-332 (JBW), 2010 WL 1221709, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. March 29,
2010).
1.

Specific Deterrence and Incapacitation

In this case, specific deterrence and incapacitation

are critical. As set forth above, the defendant is a long-time
associate of the Colombo crime family. The government
respectfully submits that despite numerous claims to the contrary
at sentencing proceedings, aside from those who decide to
cooperate against members of the mafia (and therefore are not
permitted to maintain a connection to the mafia upon disclosure
of their cooperation), few if any members or associates of the
mafia give up their connections to the mafia even after serving
significant terms of imprisonment. Furthermore, unlike many
criminals, recidivism for individuals involved in the mafia does
not decline with age, as Destefano argues in his letter, but if
anything only increases with age, because a dedicated mafia
associate can become inducted into his crime family and increase
in rank and influence. (Def.s Stg. Ltr. at 11-12).
In support of his argument for a non-incarceratory
sentence, the defendant states that he has great remorse and
no longer associates with the individuals he knew from his
neighborhood, nor does he want to. (Def.s Stg. Ltr. at 7, 10.)
The defendants claims that a non-incarceratory sentence in this
case is sufficient to deter him from committing additional crimes
is particularly hollow. Significantly, the defendant made such
an argument to Judge Glasser when he was sentenced in 2002, when
his counsel stated the following in reference to a Guidelines
range of 21 to 27 months:
[Approximate one year prior to his arrest,
Destefano] stopped the illegal activity at
that time and he got himself a better job.
Actually, hes been three years away from
that. He was nineteen at the time. Hes
twenty-three at this time. His status in
life has materially changed with the death of
his father, and the obligation that he has
towards his mother. He is her sole support.
. . . I would say he is a good candidate for
a downward departure. . . . So he does have
the potential to rehabilitate himself. . . .
At his tender age, he was prone to be unduly
influenced by older people, and I think by
-14-

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:

7726

putting him in jail, the court is not going

to be helping him or helping anybody else.
(2002 Stg. Tr. at 4-6.) Clearly, however, the sentence imposed
in that case (21 months, a sentence at the low end of the
Guidelines range) did not serve to deter the defendant in any
manner. In fact, it did not deter him from committing one of the
very crimes underlying his prior conviction: extortion. (Id.
49-50.) Instead of being deterred by his 2000 conviction for
that crime, the defendant continued to pursue a career in using
violence to make money.
A sentence within the Guidelines range will, however,
at least incapacitate the defendant, thereby protecting the
public from further crimes by him. Given the defendants
demonstrated inability to be deterred, the government
respectfully submits that a sentence below the Guidelines range
would be insufficient to protect the public from further crimes
of the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(C).
2.

General Deterrence

In addition, a sentence within the advisory Guidelines

range is necessary to deter others who are in a position to
choose between a law-abiding life and a life of crime. At a July
2009 sentencing of a Colombo crime family captain, the Honorable
Jack B. Weinstein imposed a sentence of 120 months, significantly
above the Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months, and observed the
following:
I believe that under these circumstances, ten
years is a sentence that is appropriate, not
too long, not too great, and anything less
would not send a message. The people, the
youngsters in this city have to understand
that they cannot join this organization and
that when they do they destroy their lives.
United States v. Uvino, 07 CR 725 (JBW). Although in this case
the government is not seeking a ten-year sentence -- it seeks
only a sentence within the Guidelines range -- the government
respectfully submits that a sentence within the Guidelines range
is necessary to deter others from committing crimes and from
getting involved in organized crime in the first instance. As
Judge Weinstein highlighted, a sentence taking into account
general deterrence is essential to send a message to young men in
New York City of the consequences of joining the mafia and to
deter them from joining in the first place.
-15-

Case 1:11-cr-00030-KAM-RER Document 1360-1 Filed 01/15/15 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:

7727

III. Conclusion
In this case, given all of the facts and circumstance
discussed above, a sentence below the Guidelines range would not
satisfy the statutory purposes of sentencing. United States v.
Cutler, 520 F.3d 136, 154 (2d Cir. 2008) (concluding that there
were errors in certain of the district courts Guidelines
applications and in its departure decisions; that the sentences
imposed did not properly interpret certain of the sentencing
factors that the court was required to consider under 18 U.S.C.
3553(a), such as just punishment and deterrence of others;
and that some of the courts rationales would promote disrespect
for the law.). Therefore, and for all of the foregoing reasons,
the government respectfully submits that the Court should
impose a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range determined
by the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
LORETTA E. LYNCH
United States Attorney
By:

/s/
Elizabeth A. Geddes
Allon Lifshitz
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
(718) 254-6430/6164

Enclosure
cc:

Clerk of the Court (KAM) (by ECF)

Joseph F. Kilada, Esq. (by ECF and Federal Express)
Michelle Espinoza, Senior U.S. Probation Officer (by email)

-16-