C. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the History and Characteristics of the Offender
First, as to the nature and circumstances of the offenses on which the defendant stands convicted, and as discussed above, the unlawful conduct engaged in by Gentile is very serious. The defendant not only illegally distributed prescription drugs on multiple occasions, but that
activity was only representative of what the defendant and his co-defendant/co-conspirator Parente had been doing for an extended period of time. In his sentencing memorandum, the defense sets out a rather minimalist – and the Government submits distorted --description of his involvement in the distribution of prescription drugs, Def. Memo at 10. In doing so, he completely avoids the defendant’s own words concerning his long time and lucrative involvement in such criminal activity. As the defendant knows from the pretrial discovery in this case, on October 3, 2011, a cooperating witness recorded a conversation involving Gentile, Parente and the cooperating individual. In that conversation, Andrew Parente and the defendant Gentile discussed selling Oxicontin pills to the cooperator. During the conversation, Parente described how he and Gentile had a lucrative pill business before [Genovese LCN associate] Tony [Volpe] had undercut them and taken their source of supply. In referring to that illegal activity, Parente said “[t]here was a lot of money involved in the pill operation,” and added that “we [Gentile and Parente] were doing so good.” Gentile indicated that Volpe undercut their operation while he (Gentile) was in the hospital, and stated “Look, I was in the hospital then. So he [Volpe] figured that was a good time to do it.” When the cooperator asked if he was talking about the pill operation, both Gentile and Parente responded “Yeah,” and Parente added “. . . pills. A lot of money was involved,” to which Gentile noted, “[a]bout a million dollars.”
Second, with respect to Gentile’s history and characteristics, the defendant is a long time criminal actor and member of La Cosa Nostra. While the defendant argues in his Sentencing Memorandum that his criminal record is essentially old and of no great significance, in fact, Gentile has been involved in criminal activity over a long period of time. Separate and apart from the instant charges, his record reflects convictions for Receiving Stolen Goods, PSR ¶ 56,
Breach of Peace, PSR ¶¶ 57, 59, 61, Carrying a Deadly Weapon in a Motor Vehicle, PSR ¶ 59, Possession of Illegal Firearms, PSR ¶ 60, and Larceny 1st Degree, PSR ¶ 62. With regard to the instant cases, again, the defendant stands convicted of federal weapons offenses, as well as illegal drug distribution . . . and these crimes were committed by the defendant at a time he was well into his 70's.
Further, and again as the defendant knows from the pretrial discovery in this case, he has been identified by multiple individuals as a made member of the Philadelphia LCN Family. The defendant asserts however, that information contained in the PSR relating to Gentile status as a member of the mafia constitute mere “hearsay statements” that “lack the indicia of reliability and specificity that would warrant an upward departure (based on Gentile’s criminal history score being underrepresentative).” Def. Memo. at 21-22. The Government respectfully suggests that the defendant’s assertions in this regard are disingenuous.
As the defendant knows, amongst the pretrial discovery materials provided to him regarding his being a soldier in the LCN is a report of interview with Philadelphia LCN capo Robert Luisi, the individual who sponsored Gentile’s induction into the mafia. Luisi’s credibility on this matter is supported by not only the fact that he made statements against his own interest, but by a number of revealing details he disclosed about Gentile (and other individuals he sponsored into the mafia and were part of his “crew”). For example, Luisi said Gentile was referred to as “The Cook,” a nickname that Gentile has acknowledged using. Luisi advised that Gentile was close with one Robert Guarente, who also was a member of the LCN and served as Luisi’s second in command. Federal investigators know from independent investigations that
Gentile and Guarente were in fact long time, close friends. Luisi told investigators that in the past they had committed robberies and possibly other violent crimes together and for a time both Gentile and Guarente had lived with Luisi in Waltham, Massachusetts where they served as his armed bodyguards. Significantly, Luisi said that Gentile always carried a gun, usually a snubnose .38 caliber revolver, and he also had a .22 caliber derringer. As the defense knows, and as was stipulated to as part of the Plea Agreement in this case, on February 10, 2012, Agents seized a number of handguns from the defendant’s residence, including two short-barreled .38 caliber Smith & Wessen, Model 36 revolvers (both of which were loaded) and a .22 caliber Colt derringer (along with a bag containing more than a dozen rounds of ammunition for the firearm). In addition, Luisi told investigators that Gentile had given him a silencer for a .45 caliber handgun. Again, as the defendant knows, and was stipulated to in the Plea Agreement, multiple silencers were seized from his residence in the course of the investigation that led to his convictions on the instant Indictments. Moreover, Luisi also advised authorities that Gentile had planned to commit an armed robbery of an armored car carrying monies from one of Connecticut’s gambling casinos and that he (Luisi) had introduced Gentile to others who might be willing to assist in carrying out such a crime. This information was independently corroborated by Special Agents of the FBI back in 2000. Significantly, all of the foregoing information was provided by Luisi to federal law enforcement authorities back in May of 2000, that is, long before the investigation leading to the instant Indictments had even been initiated.
The defendant recites large portions of the PSR regarding the defendant’s family, employment history, and the like. For the most part, the Government is not in a position to
disprove much of what the defendant reported to Probation, and, it assumes, there is truth to at least some of what the defendant reported. On the other hand, there are several assertions made by the defendant in his Sentencing Memorandum that require at least brief mention. For example, in his Memorandum, the defendant asserts that he was gainfully employed until he was 65 years old and retired. Def. Memo. at 17. Yet the PSR reflects that the defendant said he sold his automobile business in 1992 or 1993, at which time he “retired.” See PSR ¶81. Given the defendant’s date of birth ( July 25, 1936), PSR at 2, he would have been either 56 or 57 years old when he purportedly retired – an incredibly young age for most people, even those who have done well financially, to retire.
Similarly, the defendant states in his Memorandum that his household was one in which his children “benefitted from a safe, loving upbringing.” This may very well be true as far as it goes. However, as the PSR and additional materials reflect, including the transcript attached to the Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum, the defendant appears to have had no problem stealing assets from his deceased father’s estate and cheating his siblings out of their portion of inheritance. (“The defendant was appointed executor of the estate of his father . . . [a]s it turned out, the defendant did not pay out the monies of the estate to the beneficiaries of the estate and the surety company had to pay off on the bond. As a result, the surety company was required to pay out $73,209.98.” Def. Memo, Exhibit A at 6.
Finally, in considering the “nature and circumstances of the offense[s],” and the “characteristics of the offender,” the Government respectfully suggests that common sense dictates that one conclude the defendant is a dangerous individual. All one needs to do in considering this issue is to ask the simple question, “What even remotely lawful purpose was there for the defendant to be in possession of: multiple handguns, multiple silencers, a loaded pistol-grip shotgun hanging from a door frame inside his residence, a bullet-proof vest, police scanner, handcuffs, tasers, switch blade knives, and explosive devices?” The answer, of course, is there is none and that the defendant not only has not “aged out,” see PSR at ¶ 101, but he constitutes a continuing danger to others.