Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-14-2007
USA v. Demelio
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2709
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Demelio" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 219.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/219
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-2709
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
REGONALDO N. DEMELIO
a/k/a
RONALD COOLEY
Regonaldo N. Demelio,
Appellant.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 05-cr-00015-1)
District Judge: The Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 1, 2007
BEFORE: RENDELL, WEIS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 14, 2007)
OPINION OF THE COURT
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge
Because our opinion is wholly without precedential value, and because the parties
and the District Court are familiar with the facts underlying this appeal, we offer only an
abbreviated recitation of the background necessary for our ratio decidendi.
Mr. Demelio seeks a reversal of his conviction for threatening to murder an FBI
agent, arguing that: the District Court erred by admitting evidence of prior violent acts;
the jury had insufficient evidence to convict him; and, the District Court provided
improper jury instructions. He alternately seeks vacation and remand of his sentence on
the basis that the District Court failed to consider his mental illness. Finally, he contends
that the District Court unconstitutionally ordered him, as a condition of his supervised
release, to take medication for his mental illness if prescribed by his physician. Mr.
Demelio is wrong on all points. We will affirm the District Court’s entry of judgment and
sentence.
While incarcerated on other charges, Mr. Demelio made statements on a telephone
monitored by the prison about an FBI agent who was investigating him for a criminal
scheme to defraud insurers and mortgage lenders. These statements led to charges that he
threatened to murder the agent. At trial, the District Court allowed evidence that Mr.
Demelio had committed prior acts of violence. Noting that Mr. Demelio objected only on
2
the basis of relevancy and inflammatory effect, and not on the basis of Rule 404(b), we
conclude that the District Court did not err in permitting the government to present this
evidence, which was relevant to the objective element of the government’s burden of
proof.
We also disagree with Demelio that the District Court erred by instructing the jury
on the elements of “threat” without specifically referencing a “threat to murder.” The
jury slip specified that the jury convicted Demelio for “threatening to murder.”
Concluding that Mr. Demelio’s appeals to reverse his conviction lack legal and factual
merit, we will affirm the District Court’s Order.
Turning to Demelio’s sentence, we conclude that the District Court did not fail to
consider properly his mental illness. Given the context and clarity of Mr. Demelio’s
threat, the District Court was within its discretion to find that Mr. Demelio’s case was
“unique and extreme,” supporting a sentence of seventy-two months.
Finally, the District Court did not violate Mr. Demelio’s constitutional rights in
specifying that he was to “comply with any treating physician’s recommendations for
pharmaceutical treatment” during supervised release. Even Demelio stated that improper
treatment of his condition was a factor in his behavior. Finding that Mr. Demelio’s
appeals to vacate and remand the sentence lack legal and factual merit, we will affirm the
sentence of the District Court.
3