United States v. Aniello Palmieri
681 F. App'x 130
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Aniello Palmieri was Director of Facilities Management for Union County, NJ, overseeing millions in purchases and earning over $111,000 annually.
- From 2006–2010 he participated in kickback schemes: verifying false/inflated invoices and receiving a share of vendors’ illicit profits.
- In 2010 Palmieri cooperated with prosecutors, recorded over 50 in-person conversations, and assisted investigations.
- He pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud on October 2, 2013.
- At sentencing the District Court applied a 4-level enhancement under USSG §2C1.1(b)(3) for being a “public official in a high-level decision-making or sensitive position.”
- The Government moved for a downward departure under USSG §5K1.1 for substantial assistance; the District Court denied the motion and sentenced Palmieri to 70 months (bottom of Guidelines range).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review denial of §5K1.1 downward departure | Palmieri: court failed to give meaningful analysis of the §5K1.1 factors (invoking Torres) | Government/District Court: denial was discretionary and court recognized its discretion | No jurisdiction to review discretionary denial; even if reviewable, court adequately considered §5K1.1 factors and denial was within discretion |
| Whether Palmieri qualified for a 4‑level enhancement under USSG §2C1.1(b)(3) as a public official in a high‑level/sensitive position | Palmieri: he was not a public official in such a position | Government/District Court: he exercised substantial influence over vendor selection, fitting the guideline definition | Court affirmed enhancement; no clear error in finding substantial influence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grier, 585 F.3d 138 (3d Cir.) (discretionary denial of §5K1.1 not reviewable absent misunderstanding of court's authority)
- United States v. Torres, 251 F.3d 138 (3d Cir.) (district court must examine §5K1.1 enumerated factors and give qualitative, case‑by‑case analysis)
- United States v. Levinson, 543 F.3d 190 (3d Cir.) (policy considerations permissible in sentencing if applied to the individual)
- United States v. Richards, 674 F.3d 215 (3d Cir.) (review for clear error upholding §2C1.1(b)(3) enhancement where official exercised substantial influence)
- United States v. Savani, 733 F.3d 56 (3d Cir.) (guidelines commentary explaining application definitions is binding)
- United States v. Stephenson, 895 F.2d 867 (2d Cir.) (declined similar enhancement in different facts; discussed by court but deemed inapposite)