December 6, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1583
VINCENT J. PICCIRILLI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.
Vincent J. Piccirilli on brief pro se.
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran
and Charles A. Tamuleviz, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief
for appellee.
Per Curiam. Petitioner Vincent J. Piccirilli appeals
the district court denial of his motion to vacate and/or
correct judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. We affirm.
Petitioner contends first that his fine for cost of
incarceration, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 5K1.2(i), and the
interest assessed on that fine should be modified because the
fine imposed exceeds the actual cost of his confinement. In
fact, a fine imposed pursuant to section 5K1.2(i) is "meant
to penalize . . . criminal actions, not to pay the bills [of
the prisoner]." United States v. Price, 65 F.3d 903, 908
n.7 (11th Cir. 1995). While based on a general estimate of
the costs of confining a prisoner, the fine serves several
purposes beyond the recoupment of expenses, such as
compensating victims of crime, providing for just punishment
proportional to the seriousness of the offense and deterring
others from similar conduct. See id. at 909; United States
v. Zakhor, 58 F.3d 464, 465 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v.
May, 52 F.3d 885, 892 (10th Cir. 1995); United States v.
Leonard, 37 F.3d 32, 40 (2d Cir. 1994); United States v.
Turner, 998 F.2d 534, 536 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.
Ct. 639 (1993); United States v. Hagmann, 950 F.2d 175, 187
(5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 108 (1992).
Petitioner's claim that we treat this fine simply as a means
of allowing the government to recoup its actual expenses for
incarcerating particular individuals is thus without merit.
-2-
Petitioner also claims that interest was improperly
assessed on his fine for willfully filing false income tax
returns. However, since his offense was committed between
December 31, 1984 and November 1, 1987, the district court
was correct in assessing interest pursuant to the Criminal
Enforcement Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 3565(b)(1) (repealed
1987). See United States v. Chapdelaine, 23 F.3d 11, 13 (1st
Cir. 1994); United States v. Atlantic Disposal Serv., Inc.,
887 F.2d 1208, 1211 (3d Cir. 1989).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
-3-