Digilio

MEMORANDUM **

After pleading guilty to possession of methamphetamine and money laundering, William Anthony Digilio was sentenced to a 148 month term. He appeals the sentence.

Digilio first contends that the District Judge violated Sentencing Guideline section 6A1.3(b) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1) when he failed to rule explicitly on Digilio’s request for a departure based on vulnerability to abuse in prison because he had Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). In response to the vulnerability to abuse claim, the District Judge commented, “[o]kay. Well, that’s very often the case. I certainly will not accept the idea of giving him home detention.” He also commented that he had read defendant’s memo on the issue. This satisfies the requirement of an explicit ruling.

Digilio next contends that the District Judge violated 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (c)(1) by failing to explain how he arrived at the 148 month sentence. Section 3553(c)(1) provides that, if a sentencing range spans more than 24 months, the court must state its reasons for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the range. This subsection is inapplicable, however, where, as here, the judge grants…