United States v. Pelullo , 305 F. App'x 823 ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-5-2009
USA v. Pelullo
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2680
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Pelullo" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 2080.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/2080
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-2680
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LEONARD PELULLO,
Appellant
(D.C. Crim. No. 94-cr-00276)
No. 06-1002
LEONARD A. PELULLO
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellant
(D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-00124)
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
District Judge: The Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise
Argued: November 18, 2008
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and COHILL, Jr.,* District Judge
(Opinion Filed: January 5, 2009)
Lawrence S. Lustberg, Esq. (Argued)
Gibbons
One Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102-5310
Counsel for Appellant/Cross-Appellee
Sabrina G. Comizzoli, Esq. (Argued)
Office of the United States Attorney
970 Broad Street
Room 700
Newark, NJ 07102-0000
Counsel for Appellee/Cross-Appellant
OPINION
BARRY, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Leonard Pelullo appeals from the District Court’s May 18, 2005 order,
which reinstated the judgment of sentence imposed on December 8, 1997. The
government cross-appeals from the Court’s partial grant of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition,
which vacated an earlier order that had amended his sentence to include a forfeiture
*
Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
2
award. We will affirm the reinstatement of sentence and will vacate the order which set
aside the forfeiture.
I.
As the District Court noted, “[a] long and tangled history leads to the present
proceedings.” (Joint Appendix, “J.A.”, at 95.) Because we write only for the parties,
familiarity with the facts is presumed, and we set forth only those facts that are relevant to
our analysis.
Pelullo was indicted on December 9, 1994 and, after a six week trial, he was
convicted on November 8, 1996 of all 54 counts of the indictment, which charged
conspiracy and substantive counts to embezzle funds belonging to an employee benefit
plan and to launder the proceeds of that embezzlement.1 In addition to returning guilty
verdicts on all 54 counts, the jury found that Pelullo was required to forfeit $3,562,897.2
On December 8, 1997, the District Court imposed a sentence of, inter alia, a term of 210
months of imprisonment and restitution in the amount of $898,688. The sentence as
imposed did not explicitly include an order of forfeiture, nor did the judgment.3
1
A detailed description of the evidence presented at trial is set forth, among other
places, in United States v. Pelullo, 961 F. Supp. 736 (D. N.J. 1997).
2
A defendant who is convicted of money laundering must “forfeit to the United States
any property, real or personal, involved in such offense, or any property traceable to such
property.” 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1).
3
The written judgment form included a box marked “Forfeiture” that was left
unchecked, and no amount of forfeiture was specified. Both the oral sentence and the
written judgment included tangential references to forfeiture. The District Court set forth
3
The government brought the error to the District Court’s attention via a letter dated
January 7, 1998, thirty days after the sentence was imposed and judgment entered, and
twenty-eight days after Pelullo filed his notice of appeal. The letter was docketed as a
motion to amend the judgment, and Pelullo filed a memorandum in opposition. The
Court granted the government’s motion, and on March 6, 1998 entered an order amending
the judgment to include forfeiture in the amount of $3,562,897.
On direct appeal, we affirmed Pelullo’s conviction and sentence. See United
States v. Pelullo, 185 F.3d 863 (3d Cir. 1999) (table decision) (“Pelullo I”). In that
appeal, Pelullo and the government briefed the issue of whether the judgment had been
properly amended, and we summarily addressed the matter, stating: “[u]pon review of the
briefs and the record, we conclude that Pelullo’s remaining claims . . . [including] that the
District Court committed various sentencing errors [] are without merit and do not require
discussion.” (J.A. at 153.) The Supreme Court denied certiorari on January 10, 2000.
Pelullo v. United States, 528 U.S. 1081 (2000). The judgment of conviction and sentence
was thereby rendered final.
On November 4, 1999, Pelullo filed a series of motions for a new trial pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. He argued that the government failed to disclose
the reasoning supporting its sentence in a document entitled “Rider A,” which was
attached to the formal judgment and read into the record at sentencing. “Rider A”
specifically addressed Pelullo’s ability to pay restitution, which was regarded as marginal
because “[h]e is subject to an order of forfeiture in this case.” (J.A. at 11.) No additional
details, such as the amount of the forfeiture awarded by the jury, were included.
4
material exculpatory evidence at the time of trial, in violation of its obligations under
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), thus rendering his conviction constitutionally
infirm. On January 9, 2001, he filed a petition to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. His § 2255 petition contended, inter alia, that the District Court
improperly amended the judgment when it added the forfeiture provision. After
consolidating the new trial motions and the § 2255 petition, the Court granted a new trial,
concluding that the government had, indeed, failed to disclose Brady material. 4
On January 12, 2005, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), and held that the United States Sentencing Guidelines must, under the
Sixth Amendment, be viewed as merely advisory.5 Just six weeks later, on February 25,
2005, and with full knowledge of Booker, we reversed the District Court’s grant of a new
4
The District Court addressed (and dismissed) only one of Pelullo’s § 2255 arguments
– that the Court improperly instructed the jury – and noted that it was unnecessary to
address Pelullo’s argument as to forfeiture given that a new trial had been ordered.
5
Shortly thereafter, the Clerk of this Court informed Pelullo—and all other defendants
on direct appeal or collateral review—that if he wished to challenge his sentence under
Booker he must so inform the Court by letter within twenty days. Pelullo did so, and
requested briefing on the issue. We denied that request by order dated March 14, 2005.
The order stated, in relevant part:
[W]e direct that all sentencing matters pertaining to Booker, including
whether Booker applies to a case on collateral review, such as this case, be
brought before the District Court in the first instance. We express no
opinion as to the applicability or retroactivity of Booker, or any other
related issues.”
(J.A. at 30.)
5
trial and “direct[ed] the District Court to reinstate the judgment of Pelullo’s conviction
and sentence,” United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 201-02 (3d Cir. 2005) (“Pelullo
II”). We affirmed the partial dismissal of the § 2255 petition and remanded the remaining
issues raised in the petition for consideration by the District Court.
On May 18, 2005, the District Court, doing what we had instructed it to do,
reinstated the final judgment of conviction and sentence. The Court believed that the
judgment became final on January 10, 2000 and, thus, that the post-Booker sentencing
scheme did not apply to Pelullo.6 The Court also considered what remained undecided in
the § 2255 petition, and granted the petition in one respect: it found that it had been
without jurisdiction to enter the order amending the judgment to impose forfeiture. The
Court noted that “the omission of a forfeiture provision is not a clerical error,” and that it
lacked the ability to amend the judgment of sentence 30 days after judgment had been
entered. (J.A. at 113.)
II.
We have jurisdiction over Pelullo’s challenge to his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742(a), and jurisdiction over the government’s cross-appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2253.
6
The District Court concluded that Pelullo’s Rule 33 motion was a collateral attack on
his conviction and sentence, and that “[f]or retroactivity purposes, defendant’s case
became final on January 10, 2000, when the Supreme Court denied certiorari.” (J.A. at
98.)
6
III.
A. Pelullo’s Sentencing Appeal.
Pelullo describes what is before us as sui generis and notes that the factual
situation is one of a kind. The government does not disagree. Indeed, neither party has
suggested that there is any case on point, and none has been located by us. Pelullo’s
argument, in broad summary, goes something like this: On January 12, 2005, when
Booker was decided, Pelullo was not under a sentence of imprisonment — his original
sentence had been vacated on May 17, 2002, when the District Court granted his motion
for a new trial. Because we reversed the grant of a new trial subsequent to the decision in
Booker, Pelullo contends that he was entitled to be resentenced and that that resentencing
should be in accordance with Booker.
At first blush — and, much credit to the superb and creative defense lawyering,
even at second blush — Pelullo’s argument seems to make sense. After all, when Pelullo
stood before the District Court on May 18, 2005, he was arguably under no sentence and
the sentence that we directed be reinstated had been calculated pursuant to the then-
mandatory Guidelines which became advisory as to sentences imposed after Booker. So
why, Pelullo asks, should not the advisory Guidelines be applied to him?
The answer, at the end of the day, is really quite simple. Prior to the District
Court’s order granting Pelullo a new trial, his conviction and sentence were final, having
become so when the Supreme Court denied certiorari. When, in Pelullo II, we reversed
7
the order granting a new trial, our reversal essentially rendered that order void ab initio
such that Pelullo was in the same position as if the order had never been entered and the
conviction and sentence never vacated. See CGB Occupational Therapy, Inc. v. RNA
Health Services, Inc., 499 F.3d 184, 190 n.2 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting 5 C.J.S. Appeal and
Error § 1106 (2007)) (“the effect of a reversal of a judgment ‘is to nullify it completely
and leave the case standing as if such judgment had never been rendered . . . .’”).7
Viewing Pelullo’s case through this prism, there is no question that the original (and long
final) judgment of sentence was properly reinstated (assuming that reinstatement was
even required), and that Booker did not apply. See Lloyd v. United States, 407 F.3d 608,
611-12 (3d Cir. 2005) (Booker does not apply retroactively to sentences that were final).
B. Government’s Cross-Appeal.
The government asserts, correctly, that on direct appeal Pelullo challenged the
propriety of the order amending his judgment of sentence to include forfeiture. We
rejected his argument and affirmed the judgment of sentence, a decision that was binding
on the District Court. Absent circumstances not present here, Pelullo’s § 2255 petition
could not “be used to relitigate matters decided adversely on appeal.” Gov’t of the Virgin
Islands v. Nicholas, 759 F.2d 1073, 1075 (3d Cir. 1985); see White v. United States, 371
7
See also 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 1106 (2007) (“the effect of a general and
unqualified reversal of judgment, order, or decree is to nullify it completely and to leave
the case standing as if such judgment, order, or decree had never been rendered, except as
restricted by the opinion of the appellate court”).
8
F.3d 900, 902 (7th Cir. 2004) (invoking “doctrine of law of the case” and holding that
“the courts, including our court, forbid a prisoner to relitigate in a collateral proceeding
an issue that was decided on his direct appeal”).
Even were our decision on direct appeal not binding, the District Court could
properly have corrected the sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 as
interpreted in United States v. Bennett, 423 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2005), and, indeed, initially
did just that. Rule 36 provides:
After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time
correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record or
correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. “Clerical error” is defined as “a failure to accurately record a
statement or action by the court or one of the parties.” Bennett, 423 F.3d at 278 (citations
omitted). We noted in Bennett that “most courts that have reached the issue have allowed
Rule 36 amendment to add an obviously warranted order of forfeiture.” Id. at 279. Our
review is plenary.
It could not be clearer that the order of forfeiture was “obviously warrranted” and,
thus, that correction of the judgment was appropriate:
BY THE CLERK:
Q. Would the foreperson please stand. Have you reached a verdict on the
forfeiture?
A. (The Foreperson) Yes, we have, and the amount is $3,562,897.
* * *
9
THE COURT: All right. Judgment will be entered in accordance with the
verdict.
(J.A. at 197.) Where “as here, there is no dispute about notice to the defendant, the
court’s intent, or the propriety of the result,” and where a jury has reached an
unchallenged verdict as to the amount of forfeiture, the “omission of forfeiture in the final
sentence is . . . tantamount to a mere clerical error.” Bennett, 423 F.3d at 282. The
District Court’s initial order correcting the sentence to include forfeiture in the amount of
$3,562.897 was proper, and it erred in vacating that order.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment of
sentence, entered on May 18, 2005. We will vacate the Court’s order entered on
November 1, 2005 and remand for entry of an order correcting the judgment of sentence
to include forfeiture in the amount of $3,562,897.
10