govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-3_88-cr-00239-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
    
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
                                  Plaintiff 
 
                       v. 
 
 
RICHARD DESCISCIO 
                                  
                                  Defendant.  
 
 
Crim. Action No.: 3:88-cr-00239-2 
 
 
MEMORANDUM  
AND ORDER DENYING 
COMPASSIONATE RELEASE 
 
 
 
This case is before the Court on Defendant Richard DeSciscio’s pro se 
Fourth Motion for Compassionate Release.  (ECF No. 47).1  The motion is denied. 
For the most part, this motion reasserts or refashions arguments DeSciscio 
has raised in prior motions for compassionate release.  For one, the Court has 
repeatedly weighed DeSciscio’s advanced age and poor health against his life of 
violent crime; each time, the Court has concluded that DeSciscio does not merit 
compassionate release because he has not demonstrated extraordinary and 
compelling circumstances nor that the sentencing factors weigh in favor of 
release.2  See (ECF Nos. 14, 46).  Notably, this motion does not raise any new 
 
1  DeSciscio filed three prior motions.  (ECF Nos. 6, 25, 31).   
 
For reasons that are unclear, there is a filing identical to ECF No. 47 on the docket.  (ECF No. 
48).  The Court is considering these filings together. 
 
2  DeSciscio faults the Court for not acknowledging his health problems or his incarceration for 
over three decades, (ECF No. 47 at 1-2), but the Court acknowledged the same in its prior 
Case 3:88-cr-00239-RK     Document 50     Filed 07/06/22     Page 1 of 4 PageID: <pageID>
medical condition for the Court to consider in evaluating whether DeSciscio has 
demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying compassionate 
release.  Likewise, the Court does not consider recent cases of COVID-19 at 
DeSciscio’s correctional facility, (ECF No.47 at 4-5), to be “new evidence,” 
because the Court has repeatedly considered DeSciscio’s risk of contracting 
COVID-19 while incarcerated.3  (ECF Nos. 14 at 13, 46 at 2-3).  The Court has 
also previously rejected DeSciscio’s arguments that he did not commit a crime of 
violence and that the severity of his crimes should be mitigated by the fact that he 
was not the “main perpetrator.”  See (ECF Nos. 31-1 at 33, 46 at 3-4).  Finally, the 
Court has previously rejected the notion that it is bound by other cases where other 
defendants were granted compassionate release.  (ECF No. 46 at 4).  The Court 
relies on its prior rationale in rejecting DeSciscio’s reasserted and refashioned 
arguments.  See (ECF Nos. 14, 46).   
At oral argument, DeSciscio insisted he had never been violent, that he had 
never participated in organized crime, and that his only conviction was for a crime 
related to possessing stolen property over sixty years ago.  These assertions are all 
contradicted by DeSciscio’s Presentence Report, which details his long, violent 
 
decisions denying compassionate release, (ECF Nos. 14, 46).  Moreover, the Court has found 
that DeSciscio’s medical conditions and risk of exposure to COVID-19 do not constitute 
extraordinary and compelling circumstances.  (ECF No. 14 at 7-13). 
 
3  At oral argument, DeSciscio claimed he had contracted COVID-19 while incarcerated, but he 
did not claim to suffer any lasting complications from COVID-19. 
Case 3:88-cr-00239-RK     Document 50     Filed 07/06/22     Page 2 of 4 PageID: <pageID>
criminal history as an enforcer for the mafia.  (PSR ¶¶1-2, 4-6, 26, 28-34, 55, 61, 
112).   
The Court is also in receipt of a letter from DeSciscio’s former neighbor, 
Millie Burch, who testified at DeSciscio’s trial.  Burch claims DeSciscio was at a 
church carnival on the night of one of the crimes of which he was convicted.  The 
Court is unconvinced to set aside DeSciscio’s convictions based upon a short, 
sworn statement; his guilt has been considered by the various courts which have 
considered his appeals and his petitioners for various forms of post-conviction 
relief.  See generally DeSciscio v. United States, No. 08-229, 2009 WL 2923084 
(D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2009).   
The new issues presented by DeSciscio’s pending motion are raised in a 
letter from DeSciscio’s daughter, Renee DeSciscio, who writes of the hardship that 
DeSciscio’s incarceration has had on their family.  Specifically, DeSciscio’s wife 
is unwell, suffering from dementia, and no longer able to visit him; DeSciscio’s 
siblings are in poor health; and DeSciscio’s granddaughter, who suffers from some 
behavioral issues, has not seen him in several years.  DeSciscio also raised these 
issues at oral argument.  Despite same, his term of incarceration has been very long 
because of his participation in organized crime, including participating in three 
murder conspiracies.   
Case 3:88-cr-00239-RK     Document 50     Filed 07/06/22     Page 3 of 4 PageID: <pageID>
Finally, even if the Court found DeSciscio’s motion meritorious, the Court 
would be statutorily barred from granting compassionate release because section 
404(c) of the First Step Act prohibits the Court from entertaining any motion to 
reduce a sentence if a previous motion to reduce a sentence was “denied after a 
complete review of the motion on the merits.”  United States v. Moore, 975 F.3d 
84, 91 (2d Cir. 2020); United States v. Denson, 963 F.3d 1080, 1087 (11th Cir. 
2020); United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2019).  DeSciscio’s 
first petition was denied following a complete review on the merits.  (ECF 14).  
Therefore, he cannot be granted compassionate release. 
ORDER 
 Accordingly, IT IS on this 6th day of July, 2022, 
ORDERED that Defendant’s Fourth Motion for Compassionate Release 
(ECF Nos. 47, 48) is DENIED. 
 
      s/Peter G. Sheridan    
      PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.   
Case 3:88-cr-00239-RK     Document 50     Filed 07/06/22     Page 4 of 4 PageID: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight