USA v. Orena, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-against-
VICTOR J. ORENA,
Defendant.
------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
92-CR-351(EK)
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Currently before the Court is Victor Orena’s second
motion for compassionate release.
The facts underlying this petition were set forth in
this Court’s order of October 27, 2021, denying Orena’s first
motion for compassionate release. 	See Mem. & Order, ECF No.
1876. 	This order assumes familiarity with that one. 	In brief,
Orena was a senior member of the Colombo organized crime family
and served as its acting boss for some time. 	In 1992, a jury
convicted him of a litany of crimes including murder, murder
conspiracy, and racketeering.
The basis for Orena’s first motion for compassionate
release was that he suffered from numerous serious medical
conditions that constituted “extraordinary and compelling
reasons” justifying release. 	First Compassionate Release Mot.
1-4, ECF No. 1864. 	The Court denied that motion, concluding
that his medical conditions failed to overcome the 18 U.S.C.
Case 1:92-cr-00351-NRM Document 1994 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
§ 3553(a) factors — including especially the death and
destruction wrought by his conduct — that militated in favor of
his continued imprisonment. 	Mem. & Order 6. 	Orena appealed
that decision, and the Second Circuit affirmed. 	United States
v. Amato, 48 F.4th 61, 66 (2d Cir. 2022).
In April 2025, Orena moved for compassionate release
for a second time. 	Second Compassionate Release Mot., ECF No.
1976. 	The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant that
motion while Orena’s resentencing was on appeal. 	Mem. & Order
Deferring Decision, ECF No. 1980. 	The Second Circuit has since
affirmed the decision on resentencing (and the mandate has now
issued), thus restoring this Court’s jurisdiction. 	See ECF No.
1985.1 	Thereafter, in January 2026, Orena renewed his second
motion – this time, proceeding pro se. 	Renewed Second Mot. For
Compassionate Release, ECF No. 1990.
We first address his counseled motion and then turn to
his renewed motion.
Counsel again recites the litany of serious ailments
1 The Court has consistently accommodated Orena’s preferences regarding
the order of consideration of his numerous post-conviction motions. 	See ECF
Nos. 1871, 1878, 1922. 	Orena received leave to file a second or successive
Section 2255 petition from the Second Circuit. 	See ECF No. 1850 at 11-12.
But he ultimately requested that resentencing proceed before the briefing or
adjudication of any Section 2255 petition. 	See ECF No. 1922 at 3. 	At a
February 2024 status conference, the Court confirmed that there is no
currently pending Section 2255 petition. 	See Transcript of February 1, 2024
Conf. at 23:23-25;24:1-3. 	Indeed, there are no motions for further relief
currently pending before the Court. 	Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is
directed to terminate Case No. 20-CV-04548.
Case 1:92-cr-00351-NRM Document 1994 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
from which he suffers, including Alzheimer’s disease and other
degenerative diseases. 	As the Court stated before, these
serious ailments constitute extraordinary and compelling
circumstances under 18 U.S.C § 3582(c). 	The government does not
dispute this conclusion. 	See Government Opposition 12, ECF No.
1977. 	But before granting compassionate release, the Court must
also consider the Section 3553(a) sentencing factors. 	18 U.S.C
§ 3582(c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Fernandez, 104 F.4th
420, 430 (2d Cir. 2024) (“[T]he analysis of whether
‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for a sentence reduction
exist is separate from the question of whether the section
3553(a) sentencing factors warrant a sentence reduction.”),
cert. granted in part, No. 24-556, 2025 WL 1496486 (May 27,
2025).2
The conditions Orena relies upon largely mirror those
he cited in his first motion for compassionate release. 	Compare
First Compassionate Release Mot. 7-8 with Second Compassionate
Release Mot. 5, 17-18. 	He does argue that his conditions have
generally worsened, and he references several recent
hospitalizations during which he was treated for heart and lung
failure, among other things. 	See Second Compassionate Release
Mot. 20-23. 	Once again, the government does not dispute that
2 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.
Case 1:92-cr-00351-NRM Document 1994 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
his condition has worsened. 	Gov’t Opp’n at 12.
But even to the extent Orena has experienced a
significant decline, the primary basis for the Court’s previous
denial remains: Section 3553(a) factors including, most
prominently, the seriousness of the offense conduct, which left
so many dead (including innocent bystanders); the defendant’s
history and characteristics; and the need for just punishment.
See Mem. & Order 5-9. 	Judge Weinstein thoroughly considered all
Section 3553(a) factors before sentencing Orena to life in
prison. 	See United States v. Sessa, 821 F. Supp. 870, 873-74
(E.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Amato, 15 F.3d
230 (2d Cir. 1994), and aff’d sub nom. United States v. Orena,
32 F.3d 704 (2d Cir. 1994), and aff'd, 41 F.3d 1501 (2d Cir.
1994). 	This Court has considered those factors, too, both in
response to Orena’s original petition for compassionate release,
and again now.
As Judge Weinstein recognized at sentencing in 1993,
no sentence apart from life imprisonment would reflect the
seriousness of Orena’s campaign of violence and destruction or
his history as a career criminal. 	Id. at 874–75. 	Orena was a
leader in the Colombo family and oversaw a massive campaign of
violence against his enemies, resulting in the death of numerous
victims, including innocent bystanders, and injury to many more.
Revised Presentence Report ¶¶ 43, 44, 54-55, 268, ECF No. 1923.
Case 1:92-cr-00351-NRM Document 1994 Filed 04/27/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
He wrought carnage throughout New York and New Jersey. 	Sessa,
821 F. Supp. at 872-73. 	And the activity of the Colombo family,
including through his efforts, financially “drain[ed]” and
caused “deterioration” of New York City. 	Id. at 874.
We next turn briefly to the defendant’s pro se motion.3
At the outset, that motion is improper given his counseled
status. 	See United States v. Rivernider, 828 F.3d 91, 108 (2d
Cir. 2016). 	Even so, Orena’s pro se motion does not establish
that compassionate release is warranted. 	Apart from repeating
the arguments in his counseled motion, he invokes a provision in
the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy statement on compassionate
release — U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). 	That provision states that
when a “defendant has received an unusually long sentence and
has served at least 10 years of [that sentence], a change in the
law . . . may be considered in determining whether the defendant
presents an extraordinary and compelling reason, but only where
such change would produce a gross disparity between the sentence
being served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time
the motion is filed.” 	Section 1B1.13(b)(6).
Orena has identified no “material change in law” that
qualifies under this section’s standard. 	See United States v.
3 The Court observes that Orena’s pro se motion articulates coherent
(if unavailing) arguments, raising at least a question regarding how he
prepared this filing in light of the serious degenerative diseases that form
the basis for his counseled motion. 	Ultimately, this question does not
matter to the analysis herein.
Case 1:92-cr-00351-NRM Document 1994 Filed 04/27/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Orlandez-Gamboa, No. 25-279-CR, 2026 WL 471835, at *3 (2d Cir.
Feb. 19, 2026). 	Instead, he simply points to United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), in which the Supreme Court held
that the Guidelines were to be advisory. 	Id. at 247. 	Orena
appears to argue that because he was sentenced under a
Guidelines framework that was mandatory, he would likely receive
a different sentence were he sentenced today. 	As explained
above, however, Judge Weinstein held that the Section 3553(a)
factors “require a life sentence” for Orena. 	Sessa, 821 F.
Supp. at 871. 	He then determined that this sentence was
consistent with the Guidelines’ mandated term of life
imprisonment. 	Id. 	Orena has made no showing that the
Guidelines’ advisory nature would lead to a different analysis
under the Section 3553(a) factors, no less “produce a gross
disparity” with the sentence he received.
Given the foregoing, and the reasons cited in this
Court’s prior order on compassionate release, the motions must
be denied. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Case No.
20-CV-04548.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Case 1:92-cr-00351-NRM Document 1994 Filed 04/27/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Dated: 	April 27, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:92-cr-00351-NRM Document 1994 Filed 04/27/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>