Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Cuciniello

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

July 25, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
JOSEPH CUCINIELLO.

          ORDER

         This cause is before the Court on:

Dkt. 1999

Motion for Reconsideration re [572] Order on Motion to Revoke

Dkt. 2007

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Specifically For Estimated Date for Ruling re [1999] Motion for Reconsideration re [572] Order on Motion to Revoke

Dkt. 2010

Motion to Dismiss or Stay

Dkt. 2012

Motion to Strike

Dkt. 2013

Motion for Relief From Judgment

Dkt. 2015

Motion for Release From Custody

         Defendant Joseph Cuciniello, pro se, has requested reconsideration of the Amended Order of Release and Conditions of Release (Dkt. 572) due to fraud on the Court "which has caused the continual abuse of the children in foster care."

         I. Background

         Defendant Cuciniello was arrested on December 16, 2002 (Dkt. 55), and released on bond. (Dkt. 49).

         On October 7, 2004, the Government moved to revoke Defendant Cuciniello's Order fo Release, and requested pretrial detention. Defendant Cuciniello opposed the Government's Motion. The Magistrate Judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on November 9, 2004 (Dkt. 566). An Amended Order of Release (Dkt. 572) was entered; the Court found that the Government established by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant Cuciniello violated the conditions of his release providing that "the Defendant must not engage in any manner directly or indirectly in the sale of securities of any kind during the period of his release." The Court modified its Order of Release, directing Defendant Cuciniello to comply with the original conditions of release, restricting Defendant Cuciniello to home detention, and vacating the previous Order permitting travel. (Dkt. 204).

         Defendant Cuciniello appealed the Amended Order of Release to the undersigned. (Dkts. 578, 579). The Court affirmed the Amended Order of Release and denied Defendant's Motion for Revocation. (Dkt. 603).

         After a jury trial, Defendant Cuciniello was convicted on multiple counts of the Second Superseding Indictment, and found not guilty on other counts. (Dkt. 979, Jury Verdict). A separate Special Verdict for Forfeiture was entered. (Dkt. 987).

         On September 16, 2005, Defendant Cuciniello was sentenced. (Dkts. 1179, 1183). Prior to sentencing, the Government filed a Motion for Upward Departure (Dkt. 1170), which the Court granted in part at sentencing.

         A First Amended Judgment (Dkt. 1286), and a Second Amended Judgment (Dkts. 1516, 1521) were entered to correct clerical errors in the Judgment.

         Defendant Cuciniello appealed his conviction and sentence to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (Dkt. 1185). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendant Cuciniello's conviction and sentence. (Dkt. 1871, Mandate).

         Defendant Cuciniello began serving a term of imprisonment on October 18, 2005, and remains in custody.

         II. Discussion

"Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed." Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam). [F]ederal courts have "an obligation to look behind the label of a motion filed by a pro se inmate and determine whether the motion is, in effect, cognizable under a different remedial statutory framework," United States v. Jordan. 915 F.2d 622, 624-25 (11th Cir. 1990).

         Dkt. 1999 Motion for Reconsideration

         Defendant Cuciniello's Motion is directed to the Order controlling Defendant Cuciniello's pretrial release. Defendant Cuciniello remains in custody pursuant to the jury verdict and final judgment imposing a term of imprisonment, a term of supervised release, restitution and a special assessment fee.

         Defendant Cuciniello asserts that the Government committed fraud on the Court in order to pressure Defendant Cuciniello into pleading guilty, and to give false statements against co-Defendant Gregory Schultz. Defendant Cuciniello further asserts that Defendant Cuciniello's sentence was enhanced in that Defendant was given a two-level upward departure on an obstruction of justice charge that Defendant did not commit. Defendant Cuciniello asserts ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.