Record
Court opinion
2002-09-06
CourtListener (Free Law Project), text of the opinion
United States v. Tocco, 306 F.3d 279 (6th Cir. 2002)
Sixth Circuit opinion of September 6, 2002 on the cross-appeals from Jack Tocco's May 2000 resentencing to thirty-four months; the court again vacated the sentence and remanded.
- Date
- 2002-09-06
- Kind
- court-opinion
- Retrieved
- 2026-10-12
- Docket
- Nos. 00-1727, 00-1757 (6th Cir.); 306 F.3d 279
- Rights
- Opinion of a United States court. Works of the federal judiciary are in the public domain in the United States. The text was read on CourtListener.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, argued April 26, 2002, decided and filed September 6, 2002; rehearing denied November 19, 2002 (the date CourtListener shows). The opinion restates that on March 14, 1996 “Jack William Tocco (‘Tocco’) was indicted, along with sixteen other individuals, on twenty-five counts involving the allegedly illegal activities of the ‘Detroit Cosa Nostra Family.’ According to the indictment, Tocco was the ‘Boss’ of the Family.” On April 29, 1998 a jury in the Eastern District of Michigan convicted him on three counts.
After the first appeal (200 F.3d 401), “In May, 2000, the district court resentenced Tocco to thirty-four months’ imprisonment.” At resentencing the district court treated two underlying offenses as relevant conduct: activities related to the Frontier Hotel and Casino, and an illegal gambling business owned and operated by Frank Versaci. The government argued for further underlying offenses, among them Edgewater Hotel activities, a conspiracy to murder Harry Bowman, and Hobbs Act extortion, and for an aggravating-role enhancement.
The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Bowman murder conspiracy was not an underlying offense, but erred in refusing the four-level aggravating-role enhancement on the Versaci gambling operation. It concluded: “we again VACATE Tocco’s sentence and REMAND to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.” The opinion’s treatment of the Edgewater and Hobbs Act issues was not read in full for this archive.