United States of America v. Pica (Antico)

Filing

OPINION, affirming the district court judgment, by DAL., RJL., and dissenting in part and concurring in part in a separate opinion by RSP., FILED.[690828] [10-5026]

Case: 10-5026

Document: 89-1

Page: 1

08/14/2012

690828

17

10-5026-cr
United States v. Antico

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

August Term, 2011
(Argued: December 13, 2011

Decided: August 14, 2012)

Docket No. 10-5026-cr

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY PICA, BEVERLY PRINCE,
CHARLES SANTIAGO, SALVATORE
MANISCALCO, JR., JOHN DELUTRO, aka
Whiz,
Defendants,
ANTHONY ANTICO,
Defendant-Appellant.
-------------------------------X

Before: POOLER, LIVINGSTON, and LOHIER, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Antico appeals from a judgment of conviction entered in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Amon, C.J.) after an anonymous jury found
him guilty of one count of participating in a racketeering enterprise and one count of illegal
gambling. Antico was sentenced principally to a term of 108 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
1

Case: 10-5026

Document: 89-1

Page: 2

08/14/2012

690828

17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Antico challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for racketeering, the
District Court’s decision to empanel an anonymous jury, and the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.

21

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Amon, C.J.), at which he was

22

found guilty of one count of participating in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

23

1962(c), and one count of illegal gambling, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955. On appeal, Antico

24

challenges the District Court’s decision to empanel an anonymous jury at trial, the sufficiency of

25

the evidence underlying the racketeering conviction, and his sentence of 108 months’

26

imprisonment on that count. We affirm.

Judge Pooler concurs in part and dissents in part by separate opinion.
DIARMUID WHITE, White & White (Brendan White,
White & White, Gerald J. McMahon, on the briefs),
New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
STEPHEN E. FRANK, Assistant United States
Attorney (Peter A. Norling, Nicole M. Argentieri,
Jack Dennehy, Assistant United States Attorneys, of
counsel), for Loretta E. Lynch, United States
Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn,
NY, for Appellee.
LOHIER, Circuit Judge:
Anthony Antico appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial in the

27

BACKGROUND

28

Antico argues that there was insufficient evidence that he agreed in 2008 to extort money

29

from or rob Mario Gulinello, who had won $1.6 million on a “Pick Six” horse racing bet.

30

Antico’s participation in the conspiracy to rob Gulinello constituted one of the relevant predicate

31

acts in the racketeering charge of which Antico was convicted. Because this is an appeal from a

32

judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial, the following facts are drawn from the trial
2

Case: 10-5026

Document: 89-1

Page: 3

08/14/2012

690828

17

1

evidence and described in the light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Bahel,

2

662 F.3d 610, 617 (2d Cir. 2011). We limit our recitation of the facts to those relevant to

3

Antico’s sufficiency challenge.

4

Gulinello, the target of Antico’s robbery conspiracy, became a millionaire in 2004. By

5

2008, one of Gulinello’s acquaintances, Ralph Lento, had introduced him to Joseph Barrafato,

6

Jr., a ranking member of the Genovese crime family. In June 2008, Lento and Barrafato – a self-

7

described “made guy” involved in organized crime – met Gulinello at an off-track betting parlor

8

(“OTB”) in the Bay Ridge section of Brooklyn. Barrafato asked Gulinello to join them for

9

coffee at a coffee shop a short drive away. With Gulinello in the back seat of their car, Lento

10

and Barrafato instead drove past the coffee shop to the Coney Island section of Brooklyn. After

11

reaching a particular Coney Island street, they slowed down and another car pulled up beside

12

them. At that point, Barrafato called out to the driver in the other car, “Hey, Tico, say hello to

13

my friend Mario.” Gulinello’s encounter with Antico, whose various aliases include “Tico” and

14

“Big Nose,” lasted a few seconds. At trial Gulinello testified that Barrafato had previously

15

described Antico as a “good guy” recently released from jail. After the encounter, Gulinello

16

stopped frequenting the OTB parlor and returning Barrafato’s telephone calls.

17

At or around the same time in 2008, Barrafato’s telephone conversations were

18

intercepted by government agents via a court-authorized wiretap. In excerpts of several calls

19

from late June 2008 through July 2008 that were played for the jury, Barrafato and Antico

20

revealed their increasing financial difficulties, their familiarity with Gulinello’s wealth, and their

21

eagerness to rob Gulinello with the help of accomplices.

3

Case: 10-5026

1

Document: 89-1

Page: 4

08/14/2012

690828

17

On June 28, 2008, for example, in a telephone conversation recorded by the Government,

2

Barrafato and Lento discussed their financial worries, and Barrafato told Lento that “Big Nose”

3

had assured him that they would “have . . . money soon again.” On July 9, 2008, Antico urged

4

Barrafato to proceed quickly with a robbery that they had previously discussed, and Barrafato

5

specifically referred to a “house rob[bery]”:

6

ANTICO:

7
8
9

. . . You gotta start movin’ around, my friend. . . .
...

BARRAFATO:

I’m tryin’ to put a few things together, you
know? . . .

10

...

11

[W]hat are you, in OTB?

12

ANTICO:

Nah, I’m home. . . .

13

...

14

Get that . . . guy[] to hang out with us!

15
16

BARRAFATO:

[W]hich guy . . . the one I told you about, with
that thing?

17

ANTICO:

Yeah, yeah. Ya gotta hang out with him.

18
19
20

BARRAFATO:

. . . I gotta go a different route with him. . . .
Listen to me, it’s gotta be done the way I told
you . . . .

21

ANTICO:

Yeah, right.

22

BARRAFATO:

Yeah. It’s the only way!

23

...

24
25

Yeah, because these guys . . . , they would look
to house rob him. . . .

26

...

27
28

Yeah, yeah. I told them, “You, you don’t go
near there,” I told them.

29

ANTICO:

That’s it.

30
4

Case: 10-5026

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Document: 89-1

BARRAFATO:

Page: 5

08/14/2012

690828

17

. . . I said, “Back away from it,” I told them. “If
there’s anythin’, I’m comin’ to you,” I told
them.

Appellant’s Appendix (“App.”) 59-60.
Two days later, on July 11, 2008, Barrafato and Antico spoke urgently again about that
“thing over there”:

8
9
10

BARRAFATO:

We’re gonna come put . . . Yeah, I gotta . . .
We’re puttin’ somethin’ together with that . . .
thing over there.

11

ANTICO:

Oh! Alright.

12
13

BARRAFATO:

Yeah. It’s gonna be . . . We gotta do it. I, I
can’t wait no more.

14

ANTICO:

I know. Can’t . . .

15

BARRAFATO:

No.

16

ANTICO:

. . . wait for it.

17
18

BARRAFATO:

No, I can’t wait. No, I need, just I need the
right ingredients to make the sauce, you know?

19

ANTICO:

Right.

20
21
22

BARRAFATO:

Yeah. That’s the whole thing, it’s the right
ingredients. I’m hurtin’ myself right now. You
know what I’m sayin’? Yeah, exactly.

23
24
25

ANTICO:

Alright.

26

App. 38-39.
On the evening of July 12, 2008, Barrafato discussed the proposed robbery in a series of

27

telephone conversations with Antico, Lento, and Frank Martino, another associate of the

28

Genovese crime family. During the first call, at 8:09 p.m., Barrafato spoke with Martino about

29

the possibility of recruiting “Paulie” for the robbery of a “Pick 6” winner. Barrafato described

30

the Pick 6 winner as a “millionaire” with whom “Paulie” was acquainted:

5

Case: 10-5026

Document: 89-1

Page: 6

08/14/2012

690828

1
2

BARRAFATO:

[Y]ou know a kid Paulie with a skin head? He’s
got a bald head?

3

MARTINO:

Paulie? Yeah.

4
5

BARRAFATO:

OK. Uh . . . there’s somethin’ uh . . . We gotta
get . . . I, when, when I see you, I’ll talk to you.

6

MARTINO:

OK.

7
8
9

BARRAFATO:

17

Yeah. We . . . And uh, this, this thing here
could go down . . . ‘Cause I rather talk to you in
person, you know?

10

...

11
12

[H]e could help us with somethin’ where we
could uh . . .

13

MARTINO:

14

Oh, yeah?
...

15
16
17

BARRAFATO:

Yeah, yeah. Well . . . And he stays with a guy
that’s a millionaire. Do you understand? And
uh . . . But we can’t let him know. Capisce?

18

MARTINO:

Right.

19
20

BARRAFATO:

You just gotta, ‘cause you just gotta get him to,
to us.

21
22

MARTINO:

He’s, he’s always got, he’s always got those type
of guys hangin’ around him, all the time. . . .

23

BARRAFATO:

Ye- Yeah, the guy . . .

24

MARTINO:

Huh?

25
26

BARRAFATO:

This is the guy that hit the Pick 6 for a million
point six. He hit the Pick 6 . . .

27

MARTINO:

He did?

28
29
30

BARRAFATO:

. . . yeah, a cou-, a few years back.

App. 42-44. Antico does not suggest that “the guy that hit the Pick 6” refers to anyone but

31

Gulinello.

6

Case: 10-5026

1
2

Document: 89-1

Page: 7

08/14/2012

690828

17

After explaining that Paulie could be enlisted to help rob Gulinello, Barrafato told
Martino that he personally knew the target of the robbery:

3

MARTINO:

[S]o what could this kid [Paulie] do for you?

4
5
6
7

BARRAFATO:

Well, I, I said I’ll tell you when I see you how
we gotta go for, for us. You know what I’m
sayin’? Wi-with this. Where we could put
maybe 20 in our pockets.

8

...

9
10
11

I got the, listen, I got the guy. I know where the
guy lives. I got, I got everythin’ on him. But I
sayin, uh . . .

12

MARTINO:

Right.

13
14

BARRAFATO:

[H]e knows, you know, he knows me, you
know?

15
16
17

App. 44-45.
Barrafato spoke with Antico at 9:02 p.m. on July 12, 2008, less than an hour after
speaking with Martino about robbing Gulinello:

18
19

BARRAFATO:

Oh, I’ve been, been runnin’ around tryin’ to put
things together, you know?

20

ANTICO:

And you got it together?

21
22

BARRAFATO:

We’re gonna, we’re gonna do, we’re gonna, uh,
do it this week.

23

ANTICO:

With those, with those guys?

24
25

BARRAFATO:

With . . . No, no. Somebody else. Me and
somebody else.

26
27

ANTICO:

Are you gonna . . . ? They’re gonna do it?
They’re gonna do it . . .?

28
29

BARRAFATO:

I, I, I wanna go, I wanna go over it with you be-,
you know, before.

30

ANTICO:

Alright.

31

...

7

Case: 10-5026

Document: 89-1

Page: 8

08/14/2012

690828

1
2

BARRAFATO:

I’ll talk to you uh, maybe uh, Monday or, you
know . . . ?

3
4
5

ANTICO:

17

You, you got it.

6

App. 65.
Four minutes later, at 9:06 p.m., Barrafato called Lento, who previously had helped

7

Barrafato drive Gulinello to Coney Island to meet Antico. Barrafato urged Lento to make

8

himself “available” that week for “somethin’, somethin’ good.” Barrafato explained that he had

9

spoken to Frankie Martino and that the participants would consist of “me, you, him [Martino]

10

and we need one more guy, that’s all. But a good guy.” Barrafato informed Lento that he also

11

had spoken to Antico about his plans: “And I, I just spoke to Big Nose and uh . . . I guess, he’s

12

gonna talk to Frankie [Martino] before, but you are down on it . . . . You and somebody else.”

13

Addressing their financial woes, Barrafato added, “We’re now . . . at least we’ll get ourselves

14

above water.” App. 49-50.

15

Three days later, on July 15, 2008, Barrafato told Antico that he had done his

16

“homework” and “leg work” to prepare, and that he had “been over” and would be able to do “it”

17

during “the weekend”:

18
19

BARRAFATO:

. . . I want you to – I told you to take care of that
thing, that thing. You know.

20

ANTICO:

Yeah?

21
22

BARRAFATO:

What I was tellin’ you? Yeah, we did a lit- . . .
we did a little leg work.

23

ANTICO:

Huh?

24

BARRAFATO:

We did some leg work on it, you know?

25

ANTICO:

Yeah, uh-huh.

26
27

BARRAFATO:

Yeah, yeah. We’ve been over . . . . We’re
gonna it do [sic] uh . . . the weekend.

8

Case: 10-5026

Document: 89-1

Page: 9

08/14/2012

690828

1

ANTICO:

Oh, yeah?

2

BARRAFATO:

Yeah. We did the leg work, you know? . . .

3

ANTICO:

Yeah, yeah.

4

BARRAFATO:

Yeah, you gotta, you gotta do your homework.

5
6
7
8
9

ANTICO:

17

All right.

App. 53.
Barrafato and Antico spoke again by telephone the following afternoon, on July 16, 2008.

10

During the same conversation, Antico specifically mentioned a plan to “rob somebody,” while

11

Barrafato suggested that they speak in person rather than by phone after he had “everything

12

prepared”:

13

BARRAFATO:

What’s doin’, buddy?

14
15

ANTICO:

You’re gonna rob anybody or just, you, you
know . . . ? Hello?

16

BARRAFATO:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

17

ANTICO:

Yeah. What happened?

18
19

BARRAFATO:

All right. Uh . . . I’m gonna go out and do a
couple things . . .

20

...

21
22
23

Yeah, and uh . . . We’ll, we’ll get everything
prepared and uh, then, uh, I wanna touch base
with you. Like, you know . . .

24

ANTICO:

Go ahead.

25
26

BARRAFATO:

. . . I would like to see you in person, you
know?

27

ANTICO:

Go ahead. Don’t worry . . .

28

BARRAFATO:

I wanna, I wanna tell you . . . Yeah.

29

ANTICO:

. . . too much.

9

Case: 10-5026

Document: 89-1

Page: 10

08/14/2012

690828

17

1

App. 56. Barrafato and Antico are heard laughing after Antico said, “You gonna rob anybody.”

2

The following day, July 17, 2008, a federal law enforcement agent visited Barrafato at home, and

3

the conspiracy to rob Gulinello ended.

4

2. Procedural History

5

Antico was charged in a five-count superseding indictment (the “Indictment”). Count

6

One, which is most relevant to this appeal, charged him with conducting or participating in the

7

conduct of a racketeering enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), based on four predicate

8

acts, any two of which would support a conviction of racketeering conspiracy. Two of the

9

predicate acts were (1) a conspiracy to extort money from Gulinello, in violation of New York

10

Penal Law §§ 155.40(2) and 105.10, or to rob Gulinello, in violation of New York Penal Law §§

11

160.10(1) and 105.10, and (2) illegal gambling, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955. The remaining

12

counts charged Antico with illegal gambling, robbery conspiracy, attempted robbery, and using

13

and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

14

At trial, the District Court empaneled an anonymous jury.1 Before doing so, the court

15

noted Antico’s prior federal conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District

16

of New York for “racketeering with predicate acts of extortion and witness tampering.” The

17

District Court also considered “the seriousness of the charges, the lengthy prison sentences that

18

convictions would entail, the evidence of Antico’s efforts to interfere with the judicial process,

19

and the ability of the defendant to enlist the resources of the Genovese crime family.”

1

The District Court employed a modified voir dire in which prospective jurors completed
a detailed questionnaire, but their names, addresses, and workplaces were not disclosed to
Antico.
10

Case: 10-5026

1

Document: 89-1

Page: 11

08/14/2012

690828

17

Antico was convicted of Count One based on (1) his participation in a conspiracy to

2

extort money from or rob Gulinello, and (2) illegal gambling. The jury also convicted Antico of

3

a separate count of illegal gambling but acquitted him of the remaining counts against him. In

4

November 2010 the District Court sentenced Antico principally to 108 months’ imprisonment on

5

the racketeering conviction.2 In imposing sentence, the District Court relied in part on testimony

6

from a cooperating witness at trial, Salvatore Maniscalco, that Antico recruited him to rob Louis

7

Antonelli, a jeweler, of $300,000 in jewelry and $200,000 in cash. According to Maniscalco, the

8

robbery was botched and resulted in Antonelli’s death. Antico had been acquitted at trial of

9

charges of robbery conspiracy and attempted robbery in connection with this scheme.

10

DISCUSSION

11

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence

12

Antico argues that there was insufficient evidence that he agreed to extort money from or

13

rob Gulinello, which constituted one of the relevant predicate acts in the racketeering charge.3 A

14

defendant who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence after a conviction “bears a heavy

15

burden,” United States v. Desnoyers, 637 F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks

16

omitted), and we “view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” United

17

States v. Heras, 609 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir. 2010) (quotation mark omitted). Under this

18

“exceedingly deferential standard of review,” United States v. Hassan, 578 F.3d 108, 126 (2d

19

Cir. 2008), we will affirm the conviction if “any rational trier of fact could have found the

2

The District Court also imposed a term of sixty months’ imprisonment on the conviction
for illegal gambling, to run concurrently with the 108-month sentence imposed for Count One.
3

Antico does not dispute that sufficient evidence existed to support the jury’s finding that
he participated in illegal gambling, which constituted one of the predicate acts in Count One.
11

Case: 10-5026

Document: 89-1

Page: 12

08/14/2012

690828

17

1

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt,” Heras, 609 F.3d at 105 (quotation

2

mark omitted).

3

Under New York law, a person is guilty of conspiracy in the fourth degree “when, with

4

intent that conduct constituting . . . a class B or class C felony be performed, he or she agrees

5

with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.” N.Y. Penal

6

Law § 105.10(1). A conspiracy charge “require[s] the government to prove, beyond a reasonable

7

doubt, that the defendant knew the specific nature of the conspiracy or underlying crime. Proof

8

that the defendant knew that some crime would be committed is not enough.” United States v.

9

Friedman, 300 F.3d 111, 124 (2d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). N.Y. Penal Law § 160.10(1)

10

provides that a person is guilty of robbery in the second degree, a class C felony, when “he

11

forcibly steals property” and is “aided by another person actually present.” N.Y. Penal Law §

12

160.10(1). To “forcibly steal[]” means to “use[] or threaten[] the immediate use of physical

13

force upon another person,” N.Y. Penal Law § 160.00, though “[t]he threatened use of force

14

may be implicit . . . when viewed under the totality of facts.” People v. Lopez, 555 N.Y.S.2d

15

444, 445 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1990).

16

“The traditional deference accorded to a jury’s verdict is especially important when

17

reviewing a conviction for conspiracy . . . because a conspiracy by its very nature is a secretive

18

operation, and it is a rare case where all aspects of a conspiracy can be laid bare in court with the

19

precision of a surgeon’s scalpel.” United States v. Jackson, 335 F.3d 170, 180 (2d Cir. 2003)

20

(alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). Further, in a conspiracy case, as in any other,

21

“the government is entitled to prove its case solely through circumstantial evidence.” United

22

States v. Rodriguez, 392 F.3d 539, 544 (2d Cir. 2004). To the extent that the Government relies

12

Case: 10-5026

Document: 89-1

Page: 13

08/14/2012

690828

17

1

on circumstantial evidence of a defendant’s participation in a conspiracy, however, we have

2

cautioned that such

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

circumstantial evidence of knowledge and specific intent sufficient
to sustain a conviction must include some indicia of the specific
elements of the underlying crime, such as proof of a defendant’s
knowledge or intent through evidence that the defendant
participated in conversations directly related to the substance of
the conspiracy, . . . proof that a defendant exercised authority
within the conspiracy itself, . . . or a defendant’s statements
explicitly confirming the nature of the activity in which the
co-conspirators were engaged.
Friedman, 300 F.3d at 126 (quotation marks and brackets omitted).
Particularly when viewed in chronological order, the recorded telephone conversations

15

involving Barrafato, Lento, Martino and Antico constitute circumstantial evidence that the group

16

planned together to rob Gulinello. See App. 29 (Barrafato informing Lento on June 28, 2008

17

that “Big Nose” said they’d both have money soon); App. 59 (Antico telling Barrafato on July 9

18

to “start movin’ around”); App. 38-39 (Barrafato telling Antico on July 11, “We’re puttin’

19

somethin’ together with that . . . thing over there.”); App. 42-44 (Barrafato discussing with

20

Martino on July 12 the possible recruitment of “Paulie” to help get “maybe 20” from “the guy

21

that hit the Pick Six for a million point six”); App. 65 (Barrafato telling Antico on July 12,

22

“[W]e’re gonna, uh, do it this week,” stating that he wanted to “go over it with” Antico

23

beforehand, and Antico agreeing); App. 49-50 (Barrafato enlisting Lento on July 12 to work with

24

him and Martino on a matter that he previously discussed with Antico).

25

The Government also introduced direct evidence of Antico’s involvement in the

26

conspiracy to rob Gulinello. During the recorded conversation between Antico and Barrafato on

27

July 16, 2008, Antico specifically asked, “You’re gonna rob anybody?” App. 56. Barrafato

13

Case: 10-5026

Document: 89-1

Page: 14

08/14/2012

690828

17

1

responded, “Yeah, yeah, yeah,” and both laughed. While it may be true, as Antico maintains,

2

that one interpretation of this conversation is that Antico and Barrafato were joking, a rational

3

juror also could reasonably have viewed the conversation as referencing Barrafato’s delays in

4

robbing Gulinello and reflecting the two men’s agreement to rob Gulinello within the meaning of

5

New York Penal Law §§ 160.10(1) and 105.10(1). See United States v. Torres, 604 F.3d 58, 67

6

(2d Cir. 2010) (“[W]e defer to a jury’s assessments with respect to credibility and conflicting

7

testimony, and to its choice between the competing inferences that can be drawn from the

8

evidence . . . .”). Indeed, the evidence adduced at trial included another telephone conversation

9

in which Barrafato and Antico referred to a “house rob[bery]” without a hint of laughter. See

10

App. 59-60 (Barrafato telling Antico on July 9 that “those guys . . . would look to house rob

11

him,” but that Barrafato instructed them not to “go near there”).

12

In light of the prior recorded conversations between Barrafato and Antico from late June

13

through July 12, 2008, the jury could infer that this last telephone exchange on July 16 reflected

14

Antico’s instruction to rob Gulinello, followed by Barrafato’s affirmative agreement to commit

15

the robbery with the help of other accomplices. See United States v. Rosenblatt, 554 F.2d 36, 38

16

(2d Cir. 1977). The jury could similarly infer that the planned robbery would involve at least an

17

implicit threat of force based on the “totality of facts” presented, see Lopez, 555 N.Y.S.2d at

18

445, including (1) the use of the word “rob,” the ordinary meaning of which includes the threat

19

of force, see Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1964 (2002) (listing first definition

20

of “rob” as “to take something away from (a person) by force”), (2) the fact that Barrafato

21

recruited three other men to participate in the robbery, and (3) the Coney Island car ride, which

22

appears to have been designed to intimidate Gulinello.

14

Case: 10-5026

1

Document: 89-1

Page: 15

08/14/2012

690828

17

In sum, viewing the circumstantial and direct evidence in the light most favorable to the

2

Government, and evaluating that evidence “not in isolation but in conjunction,” Torres, 604 F.3d

3

at 67 (quotation marks omitted), we conclude that there was sufficient evidence adduced at trial

4

of Antico’s knowing participation in the conspiracy to rob Gulinello in June and July 2008 to

5

sustain the racketeering conspiracy conviction.

6

2. The Anonymous Jury

7

Antico challenges the District Court’s decision to empanel an anonymous jury both on

8

constitutional grounds and because he contends it abused its discretion in doing so. We have

9

made clear that “when genuinely called for and when properly used, anonymous juries do not

10

infringe a defendant’s constitutional rights.” United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 295 (2d

11

Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 800 (2d Cir. 1994)) (quotation marks

12

omitted); see also United States v. Vario, 943 F.2d 236, 239 (2d Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we

13

have explained that “a court may order the empaneling of an anonymous jury upon (a)

14

concluding that there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection, and (b) taking

15

reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure that

16

his fundamental rights are protected. Within these parameters, the decision whether or not to

17

empanel an anonymous jury is left to the district court’s discretion.” United States v. Gotti, 459

18

F.3d 296, 345 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation marks omitted). As relevant here, the first

19

requirement may be satisfied by a “demonstrable history or likelihood of obstruction of justice

20

on the part of the defendant or others acting on his behalf.” Vario, 943 F.2d at 241.

21
22

With these well-established principles in mind, we reject Antico’s challenge to the
District Court’s empanelment of an anonymous jury. The District Court acted well within its

15

Case: 10-5026

Document: 89-1

Page: 16

08/14/2012

690828

17

1

discretion when it determined, based on Antico’s history of jury tampering and other factors, that

2

the additional protection provided by jury anonymity was warranted. Quinones, 511 F.3d at 295

3

(“We have identified strong reasons to believe that a jury needed protection in situations where

4

the government demonstrated a defendant’s willingness to tamper with the judicial process.”).

5

In addition, the District Court took reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudice to Antico

6

and to ensure that his fundamental rights were not undermined by the decision to empanel an

7

anonymous jury. Those precautions included providing the jurors with a neutral explanation of

8

the reasons for which certain measures would be taken during trial and ordering that prospective

9

jurors be given a detailed questionnaire, drafted with input from defense counsel.

10

3. Challenge to Antico’s Sentence

11

Antico also challenges the District Court’s decision at sentencing to rely on evidence of

12

Antico’s participation in the conspiracy to rob Antonelli, the jeweler, as relevant conduct under

13

Section 1B1.3 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, despite Antico’s acquittal on that

14

charge. Although this finding resulted in a substantial increase in Antico’s total offense level

15

under the Guidelines, from 28 to 43, the District Court ultimately imposed a sentence – 108

16

months’ imprisonment – that represented a substantial downward variance from the applicable

17

Guidelines range, based on a recognition that Antico had been acquitted of the relevant conduct.

18

Nevertheless, Antico argues that the District Court erred in relying on the conduct.

19

A district court may treat acquitted conduct as relevant conduct at sentencing, provided

20

that it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the conduct.

21

United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 156 (1997). Findings of relevant conduct are reviewed for

22

clear error. See United States v. Skys, 637 F.3d 146, 152, 155 (2d Cir. 2011). The District

23

Court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Antico was involved
16

Case: 10-5026

Document: 89-1

Page: 17

08/14/2012

690828

17

1

in the plan to rob Antonelli. In finding that the conspiracy to rob Antonelli qualified as relevant

2

conduct, the District Court was entitled to, and did, credit Maniscalco’s testimony that Antico

3

was involved in the plan to rob Antonelli and recruited Maniscalco to execute it. Moreover, the

4

District Court explicitly “decline[d] to impose a sentence at the level called for by the guidelines

5

. . . based on a finding made by a preponderance of the evidence,” and stated that Antico “was

6

convicted of less serious offenses, and it is for those offenses that he is and should be

7

sentenced.”

8

Having concluded that Antico’s sentence is procedurally reasonable, we next consider

9

whether the sentence is substantively reasonable. Antico principally submits that his 108-month

10

sentence was substantively unreasonable given the “low level” nature of the crimes of which he

11

was convicted, his age (75), the fact that he is currently serving a separate term of imprisonment

12

for a racketeering conviction, and the District Court’s partial reliance on the Antonelli robbery,

13

of which Antico was acquitted. Even assuming that some of these factors militate slightly in

14

Antico’s favor, the District Court was entitled to conclude that all of the remaining factors

15

warranted a higher sentence. In any event, as we have already observed, the 108-month sentence

16

represented a significant downward variance from the applicable Guidelines range. We therefore

17

reject Antico’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

18
19
20

CONCLUSION
We have considered Antico’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without
merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

21

17