United States of America v. Michael Rinaldi

DLD-121 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-1275
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MICHAEL RINALDI,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. Pa. Criminal Action No. 3:18-cr-00279-002)
District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani
____________________________________
Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 9, 2024
Before: JORDAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 11, 2024)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Pro se Appellant Michael Rinaldi appeals from an order of the District Court
granting his unopposed motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss this appeal for lack of standing.
In August 2020, a jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania found Rinaldi guilty
of narcotics and firearms offenses. He was later sentenced to a term of 235 months of
incarceration. On January 18, 2024, Rinaldi filed a pro se post-judgment motion seeking,
inter alia, a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Rinaldi argued that
pursuant to “the new retro-active guideline amendment [Amendment 821], … I am now
eligible to have my sentence reduced from 235 months imprisonment to 210 months.”
D.Ct. ECF No. 511 at 1. The District Court appointed counsel who filed a new and
unopposed motion seeking such relief. On February 1, 2024, after determining that
Rinaldi was eligible for a sentence reduction based upon Amendment 821, the District
Court granted the motion and reduced his sentence from 235 months of imprisonment to
210 months of imprisonment. Rinaldi appeals, and the Government has moved to
summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Generally, a party may not appeal from an order granting the relief he sought. See
Watson v. City of Newark, 746 F.2d 1008, 1010 (3d Cir. 1984). Rather, a party has
standing to appeal only if he is aggrieved by the judgment. Id. Rinaldi has not been
aggrieved by the challenged order, which afforded him the relief he sought – a reduction
in his sentence from 235 to 210 months of imprisonment. Accordingly, he cannot appeal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
from the challenged order, and we will dismiss this appeal for lack of standing.1 In light
of our disposition, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is denied as moot.
1 In his response in opposition to the Government’s motion for summary affirmance,
Rinaldi argues that this Court should review whether his sentence of 210 months of
imprisonment exceeds the statutory maximum for his offense of conviction. 3d Cir. ECF
No. 10 at 1. However, as Rinaldi acknowledges, see id., this argument was not presented
to the District Court in connection with the challenged order, and he cannot pursue it for
the first time on appeal. See Jenkins v. Superintendent of Laurel Highlands, 705 F.3d 80,
88 n.12 (3d Cir. 2013). Rather, the proper vehicle for such a post-conviction challenge to
his sentence is a motion filed in the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Okereke
v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002) (stating that § 2255 motions “are the
presumptive means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or
sentences”). Indeed, it appears that Rinaldi has presented this claim in a § 2255 motion,
which he filed in February 2024 and which remains pending in the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --