Piccirilli v. United States

USCA1 Opinion




December 6, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-