United States v. Mangarella

8 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Mangarella

    57 F.4th 197 (4th Cir. 2023)   Cited 52 times
    Ruling it proper to consider serious health conditions at both first and second steps

    In 2008, a jury convicted Michael Attilio Mangarella of conspiracy to defraud the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 371, and multiple counts of wire fraud, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2, after he was extradited from Costa Rica, where he and others operated a fraudulent sweepstakes scheme that targeted United States citizens. United States v. Mangarella , 489 F. App'x 648, 650 (4th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). At sentencing, the district court determined that Mangarella faced a Sentencing Guidelines range of life imprisonment, before accounting for statutory maximum penalties.

  2. United States v. Mangarella

    3:06-cr-151-FDW-DCK-3 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2021)

    (CR Doc. Nos. 113, 341, 471, 573); United States v. Mangarella, 489 Fed.Appx. 648 (4th Cir. 2012).

  3. Mangarella v. United States

    3:21-cv-296-FDW (W.D.N.C. Jun. 22, 2021)

    The Fourth Circuit affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentence. United States v. Mangarella, 489 Fed.Appx. 648 (4th Cir. 2012).

  4. United States v. Micolta-Sinisterra

    Case No. 8:13-cr-609-T-33CPT (M.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2018)

    The Court also finds against Micolta-Sinisterra on the argument that a twenty-year sentence is a life sentence. In United States v. Mangarella, 489 F. App'x 648, 652 (4th Cir. 2012), an extradited citizen of Costa Rica claimed that a 350-month sentence violated the doctrine of speciality because his extradition agreement with Costa Rica prohibited a sentence that would require the defendant to spend the rest of his life in jail. The Fourth Circuit found that the sentence imposed, which would result in the defendant being released from incarceration in his seventies, did not violate the doctrine of speciality.

  5. Estrada v. United States

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-1897-RWS-CMS (N.D. Ga. Feb. 24, 2017)

    "Because the enhancement of [the defendant's] sentence did not violate any assurances given for his extradition, '[t]here was no reason for counsel to object.'" Ocoro v. United States, 607 F. App'x 864, 868 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Chandler v. Moore, 240 F.3d 907, 917 (11th Cir. 2001) (rejecting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim with respect to a rule of specialty issue); see also United States v. Mangarella, 489 F. App'x 648, 652 (4th Cir. 2012) ("We conclude that consideration of uncharged conduct to determine the sentence did not violate the rule of specialty.") (collecting cases from the First, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Circuits). Erickson did not render ineffective assistance by omitting this meritless issue from Estrada's appellate brief.

  6. Mangarella v. Okwara

    3:16-cv-00217-FDW (W.D.N.C. May. 19, 2016)

    I. BACKGROUNDPlaintiff is a federal prisoner confined in the Elkton Federal Correctional Institution in Lisbon, Ohio, following his conviction by a jury in this District on September 18, 2008, on one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and multiple counts of wire fraud and aiding and abetting the same, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2. (3:06-cr-00151-FDW-DCK-3, Docket Entry (DE) #342: Jury Verdict; DE # 571: Amended Judgment). Petitioner's judgment was affirmed in all respects on appeal. United States v. Mangarella, 489 F. App'x 648 (4th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff's original judgment was entered on October 1, 2009. (Id., DE # 471).

  7. Mercedes v. United States

    Civ. No. 14-4517 (WJM) (D.N.J. Mar. 11, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Nor is the doctrine of specialty violated when a court considers uncharged criminal conduct in increasing an extradited defendant's sentence. See United States v. Mangarella, 489 F. App'x 648, 653 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Lomeli, 596 F.3d 496, 501 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Garrido-Santana, 360 F.3d 565, 578 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Lazarevich, 147 F.3d 1061, 1063-65 (9th Cir. 1998). See also United States v. Alvarez-Moreno, 874 F.2d 1402, 1413-14 (11th Cir. 1989) (noting that the doctrine of specialty does not restrict admissibility of evidence at trial).

  8. Mangarella v. United States

    3:13-cv-555-FDW (W.D.N.C. Apr. 22, 2014)   Cited 3 times

    On July 20, 2012, in an unpublished decision, the Fourth Circuit affirmed this Court's judgment. United States v. Mangarella, No. 11-4613, 2012 WL 2948552 (4th Cir 2012). The Fourth Circuit issued its mandate on September 25, 2012.