United States v. Messina, 806 F.3d 55

Messina pled guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy as an associate of the Bonanno family under La Cosa Nostra; admitted three predicate acts including murder-related crimes.
Prosecution and Messina entered a plea agreement in which the government would recommend a 10-year sentence under Rule 11(c)(1)(B) but the sentence would not bind the court.
District court rejected the 10-year recommendation as a dramatic departure from the Guidelines and ordered a hearing (Fatico) on disputed facts.
After the Fatico hearing, the court sentenced Messina to 18 years, above the government's recommended term but below the applicable Guidelines range, with a detailed thirty-page reasoning.
The court also imposed restitution under MVRA totaling $120,611.30, including $112,324.30 for Pistone’s lost income after death, plus funeral and related costs.
Messina timely appealed challenging the below-Guidelines sentence and the restitution order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 18-year sentence is procedurally reasonable given rejection of the 11(c)(1)(B) recommendation	Messina contends district court erred by misapplying guidance and relying on improper grounds to depart	Court independently found factors justifying a higher sentence despite plea agreement	No procedural error; sentence within reasonableness review
Whether MVRA permits lost future income for a deceased victim	MVRA does not authorize lost future income for a deceased victim	Lost income is within MVRA's scope for bodily-injury victims, including future income	Yes; MVRA permits lost future income for deceased victims; restitution upheld

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (courts may treat Guidelines as advisory and consider § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc; reasonableness review of sentences)
United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2008) (defer to district court’s judgment under 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Sanchez, 517 F.3d 651 (2d Cir. 2008) (recognizes district court would have imposed same sentence absent procedural error)
United States v. Oslund, 453 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2006) (future income included in restitution when caused by offense causing bodily injury)
United States v. Serawop, 505 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2007) (holds MVRA allows lost future income restitution for bodily-injury victims)
United States v. Cienfuegos, 462 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2006) (plain language supports lost future income restitution under MVRA)
United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (discretion in considering §3553(a) factors; not mechanically bound by Guidelines)