United States v. LoCascio , 488 F. App'x 514 ( 2012 )

11-3570-cr
United States v. LoCascio
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 16th day of November, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 Chief Judge,
8 JOHN M. WALKER, Jr.,
9 Circuit Judge,
10 SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR,
11 Associate Justice (Retired).*
12
13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
15 Appellee,
16
17 -v.- 11-3570-cr
18 JOHN GOTTI, SALVATORE GRAVANO, GUISEPPE
19 GAMBINO, AKA JOE, AKA JOEY, PHILIP
20 LOSCALZO, AKA SKINNY PHIL,
21 Defendants,
22 FRANK LOCASCIO,
23 Defendant-Appellant.
24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
*
The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice
(Retired) of the United States Supreme Court, sitting by
designation.
1
1 FOR APPELLANT: Ruth M. Liebesman, Teaneck, New
2 Jersey.
3
4 FOR APPELLEE: Peter A. Norling, Taryn A.
5 Merkl, for Loretta E. Lynch,
6 United States Attorney’s Office
7 for the Eastern District of New
8 York, Brooklyn, New York.
9
10 Appeal from an order of the United States District
11 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Glasser, J.).
12
13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
14 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
15 AFFIRMED.
16
17 Frank LoCascio appeals from an order entered on August
18 24, 2011, in the United States District Court for the
19 Eastern District of New York (Glasser, J.) denying his
20 motion to unseal certain wiretap recordings and portions of
21 his trial transcript. We assume the parties’ familiarity
22 with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the
23 issues presented for review.
24
25 LoCascio, a former underboss of the Gambino Crime
26 Family, is serving a life sentence after his 1992 conviction
27 (with co-defendant John Gotti) on charges of racketeering,
28 murder, and related offenses. The present motion is the
29 latest in a series of LoCascio’s challenges to conviction.
30 Here, he requests that the government release wiretap
31 recordings played during his trial for further testing by a
32 defense expert, analogizing recent advances in audio
33 technology to advances in DNA testing. He also seeks
34 certain portions of his trial transcript that were filed
35 under seal.
36
37 LoCascio contends that he has a due process right to
38 the audio recordings played during his trial, but he fails
39 to cite any authority in support of this proposition. Even
40 if his somewhat tenuous analogy to DNA evidence is
41 warranted, the Supreme Court has declined to recognize “a
2
1 freestanding right to access DNA evidence for testing.”1
2 District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v.
3 Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 72 (2009).
4
5 LoCascio’s motion is also procedurally barred. He
6 already filed a § 2255 petition, which was denied. LoCascio
7 v. United States, 473 F.3d 493 (2d Cir. 2007). If LoCascio
8 were to file a “second or successive petition” under § 2255,
9 it would be dismissed unless it asserted either “(1) newly
10 discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of
11 the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by
12 clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder
13 would have found the movant guilty of the offense;” or “(2)
14 a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases
15 on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was
16 previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Even if he
17 were granted the discovery he now seeks, LoCascio could
18 establish neither.2
19
20 Finding no merit in LoCascio’s remaining arguments, we
21 hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
22
23
24 FOR THE COURT:
25 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
26
1
LoCascio does not expressly assert a procedural due
process claim, but assuming one is encompassed within his
appeal, he has failed to establish that the post-conviction
relief procedures afforded to him are “fundamentally
inadequate to vindicate the substantive rights provided.”
Osborne, 557 U.S. at 69.
2
LoCascio improperly filed this motion with the
district court rather than first seeking certification from
this Court, as required by § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
3