Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120 (1996)
Mr. Mullin presented oral argument before United States Supreme Court.
Issue involved whether government motion was necessary for downward departure from mandatory minimum
where cooperation was involved. Justice Thomas majority voted 7-2 in favor of government position.
Line of questioning engaged in by Justices Kennedy and Breyer regarding extent of judicial discretion
under sentencing guidelines, however, was precursor to year 2005 watershed decision in
United States vs. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), making federal sentencing guidelines advisory rather than mandatory.
United States v. Amara S. Conteh, Crim. No.: 06 Cri. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
Mr. Mullin defended physician accused of illegally prescribing Vicodin and Lorcet without legitimate
medical purpose in violation of Federal Drug Statute. Defendant faced potential fifty (50) year term
of incarceration as well as deportation from United States. Jury returned verdict of not-guilty on
all ten (10) counts of indictment. First reported determination where the prosecuting unit, the Diversion Unit of
Federal Drug Enforcement Administration, suffered defeat in major case on all counts.
United States v. H. Galip Dedekarginoglu, Docket No.: 09 Crim No.:09-717 (SDW). (2009-2011)
Mr. Mullin represented Turkish defense contractor charged with six counts of United States military
defense fraud. Defendant faced potential forty-six to fifty-seven months incarceration under Federal
Guidelines as well as deportation. After extensive defense investigation, motion practice and
negotiations with government, the government agreed to a nolle prosequi dismissal of all counts
in exchange for single count plea by a corporate entity. Nolle prosequi dismissal is very rare in the
United States v. Keith Dozier, 119 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 1996)
Mr. Mullin represented Mr. Dozier, who had been sentenced to a term of 6-12 month imprisonment
for violation of probation. On appeal before Third Circuit, however, the court adopted defense
argument that the ex post facto clause of United States Constitution is violated when, as here,
upon revocation of supervised release, a defendant is sentenced to a new term of supervised
released even though this new term was not authorized at the time of defendant committed the
underlined offense. Sentence was vacated and defendant ultimately did not serve any jail time on
this violation of probation charge.
United States v. Gloria Gillard, 96 F.3d 1435 (3d Cir. 1996)
Mr. Mullin represented defendant, on appeal, from a conviction on money laundering and fraud related
charges. Third Circuit found that District Judge incorrectly applied sentencing guidelines,
vacated sentence and remanded for further proceedings.
United States v. Francisco Collazo-Martinez, 975 F.2d 999 (3d Cir. 1992)
Mr. Mullin represented, upon appeal, defendant convicted of drug conspiracy charges following trial
and sentenced to ten (10) year mandatory minimum. Consistent with Supreme Court decision in
Chapman vs. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (1991), the Third Circuit over turned the conviction and
vacated sentence, with remand for new trial. Defendant ultimately entered guilty plea and, consistent
with Chapman, was sentenced to time served.
United States v. Rosa Lordes Osario, (3d Cir. 1994)
Mr. Mullin represented defendant, upon appeal, from currency structuring conviction, which was vacated by
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit based on erroneous jury instruction on intent issue
in violation of U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ratzlaff v. United States , 501 U.S. 135 (1994).
Upon remand, defendant was sentenced to time served following plea.
United States v. Badalamenti, 663 F. Supp. 1539 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)
Mr. Mullin served as assistant counsel for a defendant in this historic seventeen month trial
in the Southern District of New York known as the “Pizza Connection.” Assisted chief defense counsel
in making appearances on an as-needed basis. This was Mr. Mullin’s first criminal case.
United States v. George J. Dilworth, Crim. No 10-730 (DNJ)
Federal jury fully acquitted Mr. Dilworth on all tax conspiracy charges in this two week trial after deliberating
less than two hours. This verdict represents the third consecutive full victory for Mr. Mullin's clients in
contested federal criminal cases. In 2011, Mr. Mullin secured a very rare nolle prosequi on all federal procurement
fraud charges. brought against a military defense contractor. See United States v. Dedekarginoglu. In 2007, a federal
jury fully acquitted a physician on all 10 counts of illegally prescribing pain medication. See United States v. Amara Conteh.