Serial Fraudster Loses Request to Shorten Supervised Release
Post 4976
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gC-PVpVZ, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gQmG4Tx5 and at https://lnkd.in/g9XHGMVk and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
Defendant Frank Capozzi, acting as his own lawyer, filed a letter-motion requesting early termination of his supervised release approximately 18 months into his 36-month term of supervised release.
In United States Of America v. Frank J. Capozzi, No. 3:16-CR-347, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (January 13, 2025) the USDC rejected the motion.
ANALYSIS
The primary purpose of supervised release is to facilitate the integration of offenders back into the community rather than to punish them. Congress has provided the sentencing court with the authority to terminate a defendant’s term of supervised release early pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
The factors the court must consider include:
1. the nature and circumstances of the offense and the defendant’s history and characteristics;
2. the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and provide him with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
3. the kinds of sentence and sentencing range established for the defendant’s crimes;
4. pertinent policy statements issued by the United States Sentencing Commission;
5. the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and
6. the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
In the present case, on September 11,2019, Defendant Capozzi pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 7 of the Indictment, specifically Conspiracy to Defraud the Government with Respect to Claims and Aggravated Identity Theft and Aiding and Abetting the same.
Conspiracy to Defraud the Government with Respect to Claims and Aggravated Identity Theft and Aiding and Abetting the same.
Capozzi’s convictions included his involvement in an extensive scheme from 2010 to 2014 to defraud the Department of the Treasury through the filing of false income tax returns. The falsified tax returns often used the identities of individuals, many of whom were incarcerated, who had no knowledge that returns were being filed in their name.
Since the age of 19 the most recent convictions prior to the commencement of the instant case in 2016 include a state court conviction in 2013 for “Fraud in Completing Insurance Claims; Insurance Fraud; Theft by Deception; and Conspiracy – Theft by Deception” due to Capozzi’s submission in 2011 of false employment information to Allstate Insurance to receive disability benefits to which he was not entitled.
On September 9, 2020, the USDC sentenced Capozzi to a term of incarceration of 70 months, to be followed by a term of supervised release of 3 years. Capozzi began his three-year term of supervised release in mid-2023 and has now served approximately 20-months of his supervised release term. Capozzi moved for early termination of his supervised release.
Capozzi presented little evidence that “new or unforeseen circumstances” have arisen warranting the early termination of Defendant’s supervised release.
Capozzi’s history and characteristics, and in particular his history of engaging in various types of fraudulent activity since 2010, as evidenced by his convictions in the current action as well as those in 2013 and 2014, weigh against early termination of his supervised release and demonstrate a need for continued supervision.
Defendant Capozzi’s letter-motion requesting early termination of his supervised release was denied.
ZALMA OPINION
Mr. Capozzi was a seasoned fraudster whose schemes cheated the government, the public and the insurance industry out of millions of dollars. His last conviction put him in jail for 70 months and 36 months of Supervised Release (parole). He asked the court to let him free of the supervised release but without sufficient evidence. He was a serious criminal and every time he was jailed he came out and committed more fraudulent crimes and sought mercy without any hope he will not commit more fraud.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
