Anjelica Cappellino, Esq.

Anjelica Cappellino graduated from New York Law School in 2011. She received her Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology from St. John’s University in 2008. Working for Meringolo & Associates, P.C. for the last six years, Ms. Cappellino has engaged in the representation of numerous federal criminal defendants in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Ms. Cappellino has assisted in the representation of the following notable cases: In United States v. Joseph Merlino, 16-CR-522 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y.), Mr. Merlino is charged with participating in a racketeering conspiracy referred to as the “East Coast La Cosa Nostra” – a composite of various mafia families. Mr. Merlino is scheduled to go to trial in January. In United States v. James Grant, et al., 16-CR-468 (GHW) (S.D.N.Y.), Mr. Grant, a retired New York police officer, is charged with honest services fraud in connection with alleged briberies that occurred while on the New York Police Department force. Mr. Grant’s case is currently pending and scheduled to go to trial. In United States v. Matthew Libous, 14-CR-448 (VLB) (S.D.N.Y) – Mr. Libous, a New York attorney, was charged with six counts of subscribing false tax returns and one count of impeding and obstructing the administration of the Internal Revenue Service. After a three-day trial, Mr. Libous was acquitted of four counts, including the more serious obstruction count. In U.S. v. Rios Suarez, et al., 11-CR-836 (KBF), S.D.N.Y., the defendant, a Colombian citizen extradited to the United States for prosecution, was charged with conspiracy to import thousands of kilograms of cocaine into the country. Ms. Cappellino assisted in a two-day Fatico hearing to resolve certain evidentiary issues surrounding the facts of the case. In U.S. v. John Venizelos, et al., 12-CR-65 (RJD), E.D.N.Y., the defendant was charged with conspiracy to import and distribute over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana from Canada to the United States. Facing 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment, Mr. Venizelos was sentenced to eleven years. In U.S. v. Jimmy Cournoyer, et al., 12-CR-65 (RJD) E.D.N.Y., the defendant was charged with a being the leader of a continuing criminal enterprise in Canada which included marijuana and cocaine trafficking, money laundering, and the use of firarms.

Ms. Cappellino has assisted in the sentencing preparation for a number of defendants who have received sentences far below the recommended Guidelines range. In United States v. John Tognino, 16-CR-522 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y.), Mr. Tognino was alleged to be a part of a racketeering enterprise. After accepting a plea agreement to the lesser included offense of participating in illegal gambling, Mr. Tognino received a sentence of time served. In U.S. v. Rebecca Lawrence, et al., 13-CR-143 (JMF), (S.D.N.Y.), Ms. Lawrence was facing 33 to 41 months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute heroin. She received time served. In U.S. v. Curtis Hector, 11-CR-575 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y.), Mr. Hector was facing 70 to 87 months for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. He received time served.

Ms. Cappellino has also represented clients in federal civil litigation. In 27-24 Tavern Corp. v. Dutch Kills Centraal, et al., 14-CV-1625 (RER), E.D.N.Y., Ms. Cappellino assisted in a two-day evidentiary hearing and conducted a direct examination of plaintiff’s witness. The plaintiff, an established restaurant and bar, is suing the defendant for breach of trademark for using the plaintiff’s proprietary name. In Caleb Hooker v. U.S., 11-CV-2840 (LGS), S.D.N.Y., served as trial counsel and conducted a cross examination. Mr. Hooker, a former federal inmate, had sued the Bureau of Prisons for negligence when he was slashed in the face by a fellow inmate at Metropolitan Correctional Facility.

In 2014, Ms. Cappellino co-authored “The Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the Pursuit of Fair and Just Sentences,” in Albany Law Review, 77 Alb. L. Rev. 0771 (2014), an article that examines the history of sentencing in the federal system, the creation and evolution of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and the effects of the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in United States v. Booker and its progeny. The article also discusses mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses, and how these statutes effectively conflict with the Guidelines’ purposes.