United States v. Catoggio, No. 11-3474 (2d Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Second Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Second Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Defendant appealed from a Memorandum and Order of Restitution by the district court resentencing him to pay restitution to the victims of a massive "pump-and-dump" securities fraud scheme he and his co-conspirators designed and executed. Defendant contended, inter alia, that the district court should have released some or all of defendant's money held by the court pending his resentencing. The court held that a district court could exercise its authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), to restrain a convicted defendant's funds in anticipation of sentencing. Therefore, the court affirmed the restitution order.
Download PDF
11-3474-cr United States v. Roy Ageloff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2012 (Argued: September 14, 2012 Decided: October 10, 2012) Docket No. 11-3474-cr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, -v.ROBERT CATOGGIO, DONALD MESSINGER, BARRY MIELE, ALAN KOOP, MARCELO QUINTERO, MICHAEL TROCCHIO, DOMINICK FRONCILLO, STEPHEN AGNESE, ARTHUR ALONZO, JOHN ASARO, RANDY ASHENFARB, ROCCO BASILE, WILLIAM JOSEPH BATTISTA, MICHAEL A. BENGEN, JOHN BESARANY, NICHOLAS BOSCO, FABIO BORGOGNONE, NEIL BRAUNER, NICHOLAS BRIGANTI, RONALD CATAGGIO, ANTHONY CAVICCHIO, JOHN CLAUDINO, DAMON GERARD COHEN, WILLIAM COSIDENTE, RONALD CROPPER, JR., JOSEPH DIBELLA, DAVID DUNHAM, JONATHAN DURINDA, RUI REIS FIGUEIREDO, ROBERT FIGUEROA, VITO GILI, VALERY GOLDBERG, GREGORY GROELLER, THOMAS GUCCIARDO, JOHN LEMBO, III, RICO LOCASCIO, BRENT CALDERONE LONGO, MARK MANCINO, PAUL MEDAGLIA, CHRISTOPHER L. MIANO, VINCENT MINERVA, CHRISTOPHER MORMANDO, JAIME SCOTT MORRILL, JOEL NAZARENO, VITO PADULO, MICHAEL PERRINE, SCOTT PICCININNI, AKA SCOTT PALMER, AKA SCOOTER, FRANK J. PIZZOLATO, AKA FRANKIE THE FISH, THOMAS PLAMENCO, JOSEPH ROSETTI, KEITH RUFFLER, KIRK RUFFLER, MICHAEL SCARAMELLINO, JOSEPH SCARFONE, JR., RICHARD SCARSELLA, PAUL TAHAN, JEFFREY VAN BLARCOM, VICTOR VERNACI, Defendants, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 ROY AGELOFF, Defendant - Appellant. Before: POOLER, WESLEY, LOHIER, Circuit Judges. Appeal from the August 19, 2011 Memorandum and Order of Restitution from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Dearie, J.) resentencing Defendant-Appellant Roy Ageloff to pay $190 million in restitution to the victims of a massive fraud scheme perpetrated by Ageloff and his co-conspirators. Ageloff challenges this order on four grounds: (1) the district court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing prior to resentencing; (2) the eight-year delay in resentencing violated Ageloff s constitutional and statutory rights; (3) the district court should have released some or all of the $536,000 of Ageloff s money held by the court from the time of his initial sentencing; and (4) Ageloff was entitled to CJA funding for expert services. Should we remand, Ageloff requests that the case be reassigned and CJA counsel relieved. We affirm and hold that the district court properly exercised its authority under the All Writs Act to restrain Ageloff s funds in anticipation of resentencing. AFFIRMED. SCOTT L. FENSTERMAKER, Law Office of Scott L. Fenstermaker, P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant. DANIEL A. SPECTOR, Assistant United States Attorney (David C. James, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Loretta E. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee. PER CURIAM: Defendant-Appellant Roy Ageloff appeals from the August 11 19, 2011 Memorandum and Order of Restitution by the United 12 States District Court for the Eastern District of New York 13 (Dearie, J.) resentencing Ageloff to pay $190,339,436.65 in 14 restitution to the victims of a massive fraud scheme he and 15 his co-conspirators designed and executed. 16 contends, inter alia, that the district court should have 17 released some or all of the $536,000 of Ageloff s money held 18 by the court pending his resentencing. 19 court may exercise its authority under the All Writs Act to 20 restrain a convicted defendant s funds in anticipation of 21 sentencing is a question of first impression in this 22 Circuit. 23 district court s restitution order. Ageloff Whether a district We answer it in the affirmative and affirm the 24 25 Background 26 Ageloff and his partner, Robert Catoggio, were the 27 leaders of a massive pump-and-dump securities fraud 3 1 scheme. From 1991 to 1998, Ageloff and Catoggio owned and 2 controlled four brokerage firms through which they defrauded 3 the firms customers in connection with the purchase and 4 sale of different House Stocks. 5 acquired these securities cheaply and then sold their shares 6 at a substantial profit after creating artificial market 7 demand by offering incentives to brokers to aggressively 8 market the House Stocks. 9 Ageloff pled guilty to one count of racketeering and Ageloff and Catoggio After this scheme unraveled, 10 stipulated to a sentence enhancement of eighteen levels for 11 fraud that amounted to losses exceeding $80 million.1 12 The district court sentenced Ageloff to 96 months 13 imprisonment, three years supervised release and $80 14 million in restitution pursuant to the Mandatory Victims 15 Restitution Act ( MVRA ), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. 16 his initial sentencing, Ageloff deposited approximately 17 $536,000 with the clerk of the court for the purpose of 18 paying restitution. At the time of Ageloff subsequently appealed the 1 At the time Ageloff pled guilty, $80 million was the highest possible loss bracket under the 1997 Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual. See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1)(S); United States v. Catoggio, 326 F.3d 323, 325 (2d Cir. 2003). The highest possible loss bracket under the 2011 Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual is $400 million. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(P). 4 1 district court s 2001 restitution order to this Court, 2 arguing, among other things, that the district court could 3 not order restitution without first identifying the victims 4 and their losses. 5 323, 324 (2d Cir. 2003). 6 district court for the limited purpose of resentencing in 7 accordance with the MVRA. 8 3664(f)(1)(A). 9 See United States v. Catoggio, 326 F.3d We agreed and remanded to the Id. at 330; 18 U.S.C. § On remand, the government submitted a report prepared 10 by the National Association of Securities Dealers ( NASD 11 Report ) that synthesized trade-sheet data to identify and 12 tabulate the estimated $190 million in losses suffered by 13 more than 9,000 victims. 14 Report, eight years elapsed before the district court 15 resentenced Ageloff. 16 Ageloff s 2008 Florida prosecution for conspiracy to commit 17 money laundering in connection with the conviction at issue 18 here, as well as to a stay issued while Ageloff s petition 19 for a writ of certiorari was pending before the Supreme 20 Court. 21 delay on remand is not solely attributable to Ageloff. 22 the years, there were several changes of counsel on both 23 sides. Although armed with the NASD The delay is partly traceable to However, as the district court noted, the eight-year And, indeed, the district court recognized that 5 Over 1 responsibility ultimately lies, as it must, with the 2 Court. 3 107 n.17 (E.D.N.Y. 2011). 4 See United States v. Ageloff, 809 F. Supp. 2d 89, In 2011, after reviewing Ageloff s objections to the 5 NASD Report, the district court incorporated the loss 6 information into its restitution order and sentenced Ageloff 7 to pay just over $190 million. 8 order, the court also affirmed its prior rejection of 9 Ageloff s request to access some of his money held by the Id. at 106. Id. at 97-98, 112. In its 10 court. On appeal, Ageloff argues that the 11 district court improperly refused to release any of his 12 funds and consequently denied him the right to secure 13 counsel of his choice. 14 Discussion2 15 16 The All Writs Act enables federal courts to issue all 17 writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective 18 jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of 19 law. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The broad power conferred by 2 Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1651 authorizes post-conviction, pre-sentencing restraint of a defendant s property is a legal issue. We therefore engage in de novo review. See, e.g., United States v. Razmilovic, 419 F.3d 134, 136 (2d Cir. 2005). 6 1 the All Writs Act is aimed at achieving the rational ends 2 of law. 3 (1977) (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 299 (1969)). 4 Thus, courts have significant flexibility in exercising 5 their authority under the Act. 6 United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 172 See id. at 173. Although this Court has never addressed whether the All 7 Writs Act enables a court to restrain a convicted 8 defendant s property in anticipation of ordering 9 restitution, courts in this Circuit and beyond have 10 uniformly answered this question in the affirmative. 11 United States v. Hatfield, No. 06-CR-0550, 2010 WL 4235815, 12 at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2010); United States v. Numisgroup 13 Int l Corp., 169 F. Supp. 2d 133, 138-39 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); 14 United States v. Ross, No. 92-CR-1001, 1993 WL 427415, at *1 15 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 1993); see also United States v. 16 Sullivan, No. 5:09-CR-302-FL-1, 2010 WL 5437243, at *5-*7 17 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 2010); United States v. Simmons, No. 07- 18 CR-30, 2008 WL 336824, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 5, 2008); 19 United States v. Runnells, 335 F. Supp. 2d 724, 725-26 (E.D. 20 Va. 2004); United States v. Abdelhadi, 327 F. Supp. 2d 587, 21 598-601 (E.D. Va. 2004). 22 7 See 1 In reaching this conclusion, courts explain that a 2 sentencing court may use the All Writs Act to prevent the 3 defendant from frustrating collection of the restitution 4 debt. 5 Southern District of New York issued an order restraining 6 the convicted defendant s assets pending sentencing pursuant 7 to the All Writs Act. 8 restraining order furthered the court s exercise of its 9 jurisdiction over sentencing by ensuring that the defendant For instance, in Ross, a district court for the 1993 WL 427415, at *1. The 10 would have some assets available to satisfy the pending 11 restitution order. 12 amount of restitution to be ordered was unclear, the 13 district court determined that there was a real question as 14 to whether or not [the defendant] currently has sufficient 15 liquid assets to satisfy any judgment of restitution ordered 16 by the Court, and it therefore seem[ed] totally 17 appropriate to restrain [the defendant] from dissipating his 18 assets prior to sentencing. 19 See id. at *1. Even though the exact Id. (emphasis added). Relying on Ross, the Eastern District of New York used 20 the All Writs Act to restrain the defendants 26,600 coins 21 (valued somewhere between $430,000 and $860,000) in 22 anticipation of sentencing. 23 Supp. 2d at 136-38. Numisgroup Int l Corp., 169 F. The court reasoned that [t]here is no 8 1 logic to the position that the Court is powerless to enter a 2 restraining order after a jury has found a defendant guilty 3 of participating in a large-scale fraud simply because 4 sentencing has been delayed. 5 1993 WL 427415, at *1). 6 also expressed concern over one defendant s lack of assets 7 available to satisfy the court s future order of 8 restitution. See id. at 138. 9 Id. at 138 (quoting Ross, In explaining its order, the court Similarly, in Sullivan, the Eastern District of North 10 Carolina determined that a restraining order was warranted 11 pursuant to the All Writs Act because the defendant, who had 12 previously pled guilty to eleven counts of manufacturing 13 child pornography and one count of possession of child 14 pornography, was attempting to dispose of his assets prior 15 to sentencing and a probable order of restitution. 16 5437243, at *1, *7. 17 without any meaningful ability to impose a proper 18 sentence if it could not issue an order stopping a 19 convicted defendant awaiting sentencing from disposing of 20 assets in an effort to avoid paying restitution or other 21 fines and court costs. 22 Gates, 777 F. Supp. 1294, 1296 n.7 (E.D. Va. 1991)). 2010 WL The court explained that it would be Id. at *6 (quoting United States v. 23 9 1 The Eighth Circuit recently issued a set of decisions 2 that strongly suggest it takes a similar position regarding 3 a sentencing court s ability to restrain a defendant s funds 4 pursuant to the All Writs Act. 5 Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011) ( Yielding I ); see 6 also United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2011) 7 ( Yielding II ). 8 and remanded the district court s approximately $1 million 9 restitution order after finding that the court below erred See United States v. In Yielding I, the Eighth Circuit vacated 10 in presuming that restitution was mandatory. See 657 F.3d 11 at 718-19. 12 court affirmed the district court's issuance of a TRO to 13 prevent the defendant from spending or transferring any of 14 the $160,000 he was likely to receive as a settlement in an 15 unrelated civil case. 16 Circuit confirmed the district court's authority to issue 17 the TRO pursuant to the All Writs Act because the 18 restraining order was appropriate in aid of the court's 19 exercise of jurisdiction to ensure that the defendant's 20 assets were available for paying restitution. 21 726-28. 22 to enforce its restitution order and may use the All Writs 23 Act, when necessary and appropriate, to prevent the In Yielding II, decided on the same day, the 657 F.3d at 727-28. The Eighth See id. at "We agree that a sentencing court has jurisdiction 10 1 restitution debtor from frustrating collection of the 2 restitution debt." 3 vacated the restitution order itself on the same day it 4 affirmed the TRO, the court effectively held that the All 5 Writs Act gave the district court the power to issue a 6 restraining order for the purpose of ensuring that 7 sufficient funds would be available to satisfy any future 8 order of restitution. Id. at 727. Because the Eighth Circuit 9 Aided by the relevant case law, we conclude that the 10 district court properly exercised its authority under the 11 All Writs Act to restrain Ageloff s assets in anticipation 12 of resentencing.3 13 for which restitution is mandatory under the MVRA. 14 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii). 15 sentencing enhancement for fraud causing losses of $80 16 million or more, the eventual restitution order was certain 17 to exceed $536,000. 18 Although we believe that this circumstance alone would be 19 sufficient to justify the district court s exercise of its Ageloff pled guilty to committing a crime See 18 Given that Ageloff agreed to a See Catoggio, 326 F.3d at 329. 3 That the district court did not cite to the All Writs Act in reaching its decision is of no consequence; we are free to affirm on any legal basis for which there is sufficient support in the record. See, e.g., Alfaro Motors, Inc. v. Ward, 814 F.2d 883, 887 (2d Cir. 1987). 11 1 power under the All Writs Act, other facts highlight the 2 need to ensure compliance with the district court s 3 anticipated order of restitution: specifically, Ageloff s 4 2008 conviction for conspiring to launder millions of 5 dollars in proceeds from this fraud scheme. 6 Moreover, Ageloff s argument that the district court s 7 refusal to release any of his money denied him the right to 8 counsel of his choice in violation of the Sixth Amendment is 9 without merit. In United States v. Monsanto, the Supreme 10 Court held that a pretrial restraining order freezing the 11 defendant s assets did not arbitrarily interfere with a 12 defendant s fair opportunity to retain counsel. 13 600, 616 (1989) (quoting Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 69, 14 53 (1932)). 15 force here because Ageloff had already pled guilty to both 16 the underlying fraud scheme and later to attempting to 17 launder its proceeds from his prison cell. 18 Int l Corp., 169 F. Supp. 2d at 139. 19 was ably represented by CJA counsel at the time of 20 resentencing and for purposes of this appeal. 21 491 U.S. This reasoning applies with even greater See Numisgroup In any event, Ageloff Ageloff s remaining arguments on appeal are without 22 merit. For example, contrary to Ageloff s assertions, the 23 district court was not required to hold an evidentiary 12 1 hearing prior to resentencing provided that Ageloff was 2 afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. 3 States v. Slevin, 106 F.3d 1086, 1091 (2d Cir. 1996). 4 was. 5 statutory claim based on the eight-year delay in 6 resentencing because he did not suffer prejudice. 7 United States v. Ray, 578 F.3d 184, 202 (2d Cir. 2009). See United He Finally, Ageloff cannot make out any constitutional or Cf. 8 9 10 11 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. 13
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
