
USCA1 Opinion

	




        December 6, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                            ____________________        No. 95-1583                                 VINCENT J. PICCIRILLI,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                         __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Vincent J. Piccirilli on brief pro se.            _____________________            Sheldon Whitehouse,  United  States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran            __________________                             ___________________        and Charles A. Tamuleviz, Assistant  United States Attorneys, on brief            ____________________        for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   Petitioner Vincent  J. Piccirilli  appeals                 __________            the  district court  denial of  his  motion to  vacate and/or            correct judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.   2255.  We affirm.                 Petitioner  contends first  that  his fine  for cost  of            incarceration,  pursuant to  U.S.S.G.     5K1.2(i),  and  the            interest assessed on that fine should be modified because the            fine  imposed exceeds the actual cost of his confinement.  In            fact, a fine imposed pursuant  to section 5K1.2(i) is  "meant            to penalize . . . criminal  actions, not to pay the bills [of            the  prisoner]."   United  States v. Price,  65 F.3d 903, 908                               ______________    _____            n.7 (11th Cir.  1995).  While based on a  general estimate of            the costs  of confining a  prisoner, the fine  serves several            purposes  beyond   the  recoupment   of  expenses,   such  as            compensating victims of crime,  providing for just punishment            proportional to the seriousness  of the offense and deterring            others from similar conduct.   See id. at 909;  United States                                           ___ __           _____________            v. Zakhor, 58 F.3d 464, 465 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v.               ______                                    _____________            May,  52 F.3d  885, 892  (10th Cir.  1995); United  States v.            ___                                         ______________            Leonard,  37 F.3d  32, 40  (2d Cir.  1994); United  States v.            _______                                     ______________            Turner,  998 F.2d 534, 536  (7th Cir.), cert.  denied, 114 S.            ______                                  ____   ______            Ct. 639 (1993); United  States v. Hagmann, 950 F.2d  175, 187                            ______________    _______            (5th  Cir.  1991),  cert.  denied,  113  S.  Ct.  108 (1992).                                ____   ______            Petitioner's  claim that we treat this fine simply as a means            of allowing the government to recoup its actual  expenses for            incarcerating particular individuals is thus without merit.                                         -2-                 Petitioner  also claims  that  interest  was  improperly            assessed  on his fine  for willfully filing  false income tax            returns.   However, since  his offense was  committed between            December 31, 1984  and November 1,  1987, the district  court            was correct  in assessing  interest pursuant to  the Criminal            Enforcement  Act of  1984, 18  U.S.C.    3565(b)(1) (repealed            1987).  See United States v. Chapdelaine, 23 F.3d 11, 13 (1st                    ___ _____________    ___________            Cir. 1994);  United States v. Atlantic  Disposal Serv., Inc.,                         _____________    ______________________________            887 F.2d 1208, 1211 (3d Cir. 1989).                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -3-
