United States v. Rutigliano Lesniewski v. United States
694 F. App'x 19
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendants (Lesniewski and Ajemian, orthopedic physicians; Rutigliano, LIRR conductor/union president) were convicted of mail, wire, and health-care fraud and conspiracy for submitting fraudulent disability-pension applications to the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB); Rutigliano also convicted of making false statements.
- District court sentenced each to 96 months’ imprisonment (below Guidelines), three years’ supervised release, and ordered large restitution awards (~$70M–$116.5M).
- After trial, the RRB reinstated disability benefits for many annuitants whose earlier awards had been voided when fraud was discovered. Defendants moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 for a new trial based on this “newly discovered” evidence and pursued 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitions seeking resentencing (reduction in prison terms) based on reduced loss figures.
- The district court denied the Rule 33 motions and denied the § 2255 resentencing relief; defendants appealed. The Second Circuit affirmed the denials.
- The court held that reinstatement decisions did not negate the materiality or defendants’ fraudulent intent and that intended-loss (for Guidelines) remained supported despite possible changes to actual losses reflected by RRB reinstatements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RRB reinstatement of benefits is "newly discovered" evidence warranting a new trial (Rule 33) | RRB reinstatements show claimants were truly disabled, undermining fraud findings | Reinstatements do not negate prior fraudulent documents or defendants’ intent; reinstatement filings excluded defendants’ documentation | Denied — reinstatements do not show manifest injustice or erase evidence of fraud or intent |
| Whether jury instruction on occupational disability was erroneous | N/A (court reference) | Jury should be instructed that inability to perform any single task suffices for disability | Denied under law-of-the-case and merits: regulation defines occupational disability as inability to work in regular occupation; defendants could argue the alternative standard at trial |
| Whether RRB reinstatements reduce loss amount for Guidelines/resentencing (§ 2255) | Reinstatements reduced actual losses, thus defendants’ Guidelines loss figures and sentences should be reduced | Intended-loss (used by court) properly based on scope of foreseeable harm from fraudulent submissions; reinstatements don’t alter intended loss | Denied — district court reasonably relied on intended-loss; no clear error or legal mistake |
| Whether Ajemian’s plea waiver bars his § 2255 resentencing claim | N/A (court) | Waiver is unenforceable because he did not allocute to loss and counsel ineffective | Denied — waiver was knowing and voluntary; allocution and conclusory ineffective-counsel claims insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Persico, 645 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2011) (standards for newly discovered evidence on Rule 33 motion)
- United States v. Cacace, 796 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2015) (Rule 33 requires real concern that an innocent person may have been convicted)
- United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2009) (deference to jury credibility; exceptional circumstances required for new trial)
- United States v. Corsey, 723 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2013) (materiality standard: misrepresentations need only have natural tendency to influence agency decision)
- United States v. Plugh, 648 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2011) (law-of-the-case doctrine and limited exceptions)
- Cox v. United States, 783 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard of review for § 2255 denials: factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo)
- Garcia-Santos v. United States, 273 F.3d 506 (2d Cir. 2001) (enforceability of appellate/collateral-attack waivers in plea agreements)
- United States v. Rutigliano, 790 F.3d 389 (2d Cir. 2015) (prior panel opinion addressing jury instruction issue)