Piccirilli v. United States ( 1995 )

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        December 6, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-