CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Perez

This Order addresses challenges by six defendants to the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the Sentencing Guidelines. District Judge Nowlin found that the Act violates the separation of powers doctrine and Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, particularly concerning the composition and authority of the Sentencing Commission and the lack of presidential presentment for the Guidelines. The Court further ruled that the Sentencing Guidelines infringe upon defendants' due process rights by unduly restricting judicial discretion in sentencing and limiting the consideration of individual circumstances. While concluding the unconstitutional provisions could be severed, the Court directed that, pending appellate review, sentences for offenses committed after November 1, 1987, should be determined as if committed before that date, accounting for the absence of parole.

Sentencing Reform ActSentencing GuidelinesConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersArticle IDue ProcessJudicial DiscretionFederal Criminal JusticeJudicial IndependencePresentment Clause
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Bonventre

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of accepting bribes from contractors to fraudulently induce insurance carriers to lower Workers’ Compensation premiums. The court, led by Senior District Judge Weinstein, determined that general deterrence was the primary consideration in sentencing, particularly due to the widespread bribery and corruption in the New York City building industry. Despite the defendant's poor health and good private life, his crimes were motivated by greed and betrayed public trust. The court issued an upward departure from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, imposing a $250,000 fine and sentencing the defendant to time served, along with a $50 assessment. The judge found the Guideline maximum fine of $5,000 to be absurd given the defendant's wealth and the seriousness of the offense.

BriberySentencingWorkers' Compensation FraudGeneral DeterrenceUpward DepartureCriminal ConductInsurance FraudFederal Sentencing GuidelinesWhite-Collar CrimeJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2016

United States v. E.L.

Defendant E.L. pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography. Despite United States Sentencing Guidelines recommending 51 to 63 months imprisonment, Judge Jack B. Weinstein imposed a non-incarceratory sentence of five years of probation with strict conditions. This decision was largely based on extensive medical and expert testimony, which indicated that E.L. poses an almost zero risk of re-offending, especially with his ongoing participation in psychological and sex offender treatment. The court highlighted the significant negative impact incarceration would have on E.L.'s family and his progress in treatment, while emphasizing the importance of individualized sentencing assessments. This ruling also aligned with broader concerns from the Sentencing Commission and various courts regarding the severity and applicability of child pornography guidelines for non-production offenses.

Child pornographySentencingProbation18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)United States Sentencing GuidelinesSex offender treatmentRecidivism riskForensic psychiatryObsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)Depression
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Sessa

Defendants Michael Sessa, Victor Orena, and Pasquale Amato were convicted of racketeering, loansharking, and firearms offenses committed while conducting the affairs and warring over the leadership of the Colombo organized crime family. The court found that these mobsters thrived in and cultivated a complex, pervasive culture of crime, infesting and draining communities and industries in New York City through activities like loansharking and labor union corruption. The presiding judge emphasized that considerations of incapacitation and general deterrence overwhelmingly require harsh sentences, given the defendants' past histories as recidivists and the severe danger they pose to the community. Although the Sentencing Guidelines mandated life imprisonment, the court found them of little assistance in capturing the overall picture of the defendants' extensive criminal lives. Consequently, each defendant was sentenced to life in prison, with additional consecutive terms for firearm offenses, and substantial cumulative fines, with the court noting upward departures from the Guidelines due to the heinous nature of the offenses and the ongoing danger posed by the defendants.

RacketeeringLoansharkingFirearms OffensesOrganized CrimeColombo FamilySentencing MemorandumLife ImprisonmentCriminal EnterpriseGeneral DeterrenceIncapacitation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2001

United States v. Kloda

Defendants Samuel Kloda and Frieda Kloda pleaded guilty to federal tax evasion and conspiracy, admitting to falsifying nearly $900,000 in invoices to evade over $388,000 in federal, state, and local taxes. Although the Sentencing Guidelines indicated a 15-21 month imprisonment range, District Judge Hellerstein granted significant downward departures. Frieda Kloda, a single mother, was sentenced to six months imprisonment, with her custody deferred. Samuel Kloda received twelve months and one day due to his health, his wife's illness, and his critical role in their printing business, with his custody also deferred. Both defendants were ordered to pay full restitution to the taxing authorities and serve two years of supervised release.

Tax EvasionConspiracySentencing GuidelinesDownward DepartureFamily ResponsibilitiesMedical ConditionBusiness PreservationRestitutionSupervised ReleaseCriminal Punishment
References
19
Case No. 01 CR 1121
Regular Panel Decision

Russo v. United States

Carmine Russo sought to correct his sentence via a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a five-level enhancement for intended loss in his plea agreement for conspiracy to commit robbery. The court dismissed the petition, first determining it was time-barred by the AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations, as it was filed after the September 14, 2003 deadline. Second, the court found the petition barred by Russo's knowing and voluntary waiver of appeal rights, which was part of his plea agreement for a sentence within the stipulated guidelines range. Lastly, the court rejected Russo's "actual innocence" claim concerning the intended loss calculation, concluding he understood and assented to the plea terms.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselPlea AgreementAppeal WaiverStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingActual Innocence ClaimSentencing GuidelinesIntended Loss EnhancementFederal Rules of Appellate Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Hinds

Rawle Hinds was convicted for illegal re-entry into the United States after prior deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The case focused on the application of the amended Sentencing Guidelines, which came into effect on November 1, 1991, significantly increasing penalties for re-entry after an 'aggravated felony' conviction. The court found that the rigid application of these new guidelines, particularly the 16-level increase for aggravated felonies and the method of calculating criminal history for prior marijuana offenses, substantially over-represented Hinds' criminal past and the nature of his offense. Considering these factors, including the disparate treatment of similar cases and the misinformation Hinds received about potential sentences, the District Judge exercised judicial discretion to grant a downward departure. Consequently, Hinds' sentence was reduced from a possible 51-63 months to 33 months.

Sentencing GuidelinesDownward DepartureAggravated FelonyIllegal Re-entryDeportationCriminal History CalculationJudicial Discretion8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)Marijuana ConvictionImmigration Violations
References
1
Case No. 07-CR-14(S-1)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2014

United States v. Qualls

Thomas Qualls was found guilty by jury verdict on multiple counts of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice in 2008, and later pled guilty to failure to appear. During sentencing, Qualls objected to several enhancements to his offense level, including those for loss amount, sophisticated means, and leadership role, and sought a downward departure due to diminished mental capacity. The Court, presided over by Judge Dora L. Irizarry, denied all of Qualls's objections and requests for downward departure or variance. The Court affirmed that the application of the 2013 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual did not violate the ex post facto clause and that a Fatico hearing was unwarranted. Consequently, a sentence within the Guidelines range was imposed, totaling 150 months concurrently for fraud counts and 60 months consecutively for failure to appear.

Criminal FraudWire FraudMail FraudObstruction of JusticeFailure to AppearSentencing GuidelinesEx Post FactoDiminished Mental CapacitySophisticated MeansLeadership Role
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1997

United States v. Machi

Salvatore Machi, a former food service foreman, received over $122,000 in worker's compensation payments for a back injury from 1990 to 1996 while operating limousine businesses. He misrepresented his employment status on OWCP forms. The case concerns the appropriate offense level under Sentencing Guidelines for conspiracy and substantive violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1920. The dispute centers on whether Mr. Machi's conduct before September 30, 1994, was criminalized under the pre-amendment version of Section 1920, which applied only to reports "required by section 8106" of title 5. The judge adopted the defendant's argument that, as a temporarily totally disabled individual, section 8106 did not require him to file the forms, thus the pre-amendment statute did not apply to his conduct. Consequently, the loss amount for guideline determination was reduced, resulting in a lower offense level and a sentence of one month imprisonment, two years supervised release, and $40,000 restitution.

Sentencing GuidelinesWorker's Compensation Fraud18 U.S.C. § 1920 AmendmentFalse StatementsFederal Employees Compensation ActTemporarily Totally DisabledSection 8106 RequirementOffense Level CalculationRestitution OrderSupervised Release
References
6
Case No. S2 92 Cr. 530 (JES)
Regular Panel Decision

Riza v. United States

Shamsuddin Riza, acting pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition seeking to vacate or reduce his sentence, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Riza alleged his counsel failed to object to sentence enhancements stipulated in his plea agreement and to inaccuracies in his presentence investigation report (PSR). The District Court found Riza's petition procedurally barred because he knowingly waived his right to appeal a sentence within the Guidelines range and failed to establish cause or actual prejudice. Furthermore, the Court determined that Riza's ineffective assistance claim lacked merit as counsel was not obligated to file a frivolous appeal and the double counting argument regarding sentence enhancements was legally untenable. The Court also addressed Riza's claims regarding PSR inaccuracies and counsel's failure to object, concluding they did not rise to a constitutional level. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, but the Court ordered the October 14, 1993 sentencing transcript to be appended to Riza's PSR to correct a ministerial error.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel28 U.S.C. § 2255 PetitionHabeas CorpusSentencing EnhancementsPlea Agreement WaiverProcedural BarActual PrejudiceCause and PrejudicePresentence Investigation Report (PSR)Double Counting (Sentencing)
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 836 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational