Stephen A. Saccoccia v. ROBERT L. FARLEY, Warden

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0545n.06
Case No. 13-5569
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN A. SACCOCCIA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT L. FARLEY, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
KENTUCKY
BEFORE: COLE, COOK, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
COOK, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Stephen Saccoccia appeals the district court’s denial of
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Our precedent requires a § 2241
petitioner to demonstrate, inter alia, “actual innocence” of his underlying offenses. Because we
agree with the district court’s assessment that Saccoccia fails to do so, we affirm.
In 1993, a jury convicted Saccoccia of RICO conspiracy and related money-laundering
offenses in connection with his laundering $136 million in drug-transaction proceeds. Saccoccia
v. United States, 69 F. Supp. 2d 297, 299 (D.R.I. 1999). The sentencing court applied a thirteen-
level sentencing enhancement under the then-applicable guidelines because it found that the
value of the laundered funds exceeded a $100 million, see U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(N) (1993),
resulting in a guidelines sentence of life imprisonment. Because this sentence exceeded the
statutory maximum for Saccoccia’s offenses, the court sentenced Saccoccia to the statutory

-- 1 of 3 --

Case No. 13-5569
Saccoccia v. Farley
- 2 -
maximum for each of his counts and ran them consecutively, for a total of 660 years’
imprisonment. United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754, 786 (1st Cir. 1995). The First Circuit
affirmed Saccoccia’s convictions on direct appeal, id. at 762, and denied him a certificate of
appealability after the sentencing court denied his § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence,
Saccoccia v. United States, 42 F. App’x 476, 47879 (1st Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
In 2012, Saccoccia filed this § 2241 petition, arguing that the sentencing court
erroneously failed to distinguish between “gross receipts” and “net proceeds” in applying the
§ 2S1.1 sentencing enhancement. Acting under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court denied the
petition sua sponte because petitioners may challenge their conviction and sentence under § 2241
only by demonstrating actual innocence of the underlying offense—not innocence of a
sentencing enhancement. Saccoccia moved the district court to reconsider, asserting “actual
innocence of the aggravated offenses of . . . money laundering.” Noting that this new contention
conflicted with the arguments raised in Saccoccia’s petition, the district court denied the motion.
Saccoccia appeals.
A petitioner may challenge his conviction or imposition of his sentence under § 2241
“only where the petitioner . . . demonstrates ‘actual innocence.’” Wooten v. Cauley, 677 F.3d
303, 307 (6th Cir. 2012). “To establish actual innocence, petitioner must demonstrate that, in
light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted
him.” Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“‘[A]ctual innocence’ means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency.” Id. As relevant
here, “[c]laims alleging ‘actual innocence’ of a sentencing enhancement cannot be raised under
§ 2241.” Jones v. Castillo, 489 F. App’x 864, 866 (6th Cir. 2012). On appeal, Saccoccia says he
is innocent “of the aggravated sentence imposed by the district court.” He makes no attempt to

-- 2 of 3 --

Case No. 13-5569
Saccoccia v. Farley
- 3 -
demonstrate factual innocence of the money-laundering activities that undergird his convictions,
dooming his § 2241 petition.
Resisting this conclusion, Saccoccia cites Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151
(2013), for the proposition that “a sentencing enhancement . . . is an element of the charged
crimes[,] . . . [and so] a defendant can be actually innocent of a sentencing enhancement that is
an element of the charged offense.” But Alleyne held only that “facts that increase a mandatory
statutory minimum [are] part of the substantive offense.” Id. at 2161 (emphasis added). It said
nothing about guidelines sentencing factors, such as the § 2S1.1 money-laundering enhancement
at issue here. More generally, Alleyne did not address the contours of the “actual innocence”
prerequisite for § 2241 relief. Even if it had, “Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on
collateral review.” In re Mazzio, --- F.3d ---, 2014 WL 2853722 (6th Cir. 2014). Alleyne thus
cannot save Saccoccia’s petition.
We AFFIRM.

-- 3 of 3 --