Michael Avenatti Resentenced to Reduced Prison Term
Former Stormy Daniels attorney Michael Avenatti had his federal prison sentence from a June 2022 financial fraud conviction reduced from an initial 14 years during a resentencing on Thursday in California.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice on Friday confirmed to The Hollywood Reporter that U.S. District Judge James V. Selna on Thursday cut Avenatti's prison sentence to 135 months, or 11 years and 3 months, for a 2022 conviction for ripping off his California clients and others for millions of dollars.
More from The Hollywood Reporter
Appeals Court Temporarily Blocks Judge's Ruling to Return Control of National Guard to California
Trump and Melania Are Booed, Cheered During MAGA's Night Out at Kennedy Center Premiere
When Is a Torched Waymo More Than a Torched Waymo?
An incarcerated Avenatti, who made a name for himself representing porn actor Daniels against U.S. President Donald Trump during his first term in the White House, will spend just under eight more years in prison to complete his federal prison sentence, after factoring in time served.
This week's resentencing of Avenatti is not the end of his legal troubles. In February 2022, Avenatti was also convicted for stealing nearly $300,000 in book proceeds from Daniels and defrauding several other clients while attempting a shakedown of sports clothing giant Nike.
Daniels initially hired Avenatti as part of an attempt to escape the terms of a $130,000 hush payment deal that kept the porn star from speaking publicly about an alleged sexual encounter that Trump claimed never happened. Avenatti parlayed his representation of Daniels into a string of cable news appearances in which he gained national attention for mocking and baiting Trump.
On the financial fraud conviction, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 vacated the original 14 years sentence, setting up the resentencing by an erring Judge Selna in a Santa Ana, courthouse on Thursday.
Best of The Hollywood Reporter
'The Studio': 30 Famous Faces Who Play (a Version of) Themselves in the Hollywood-Based Series
22 of the Most Shocking Character Deaths in Television History
A 'Star Wars' Timeline: All the Movies and TV Shows in the Franchise
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Asking Eric: Brother's drunken phone calls have become a burden
Dear Eric: My younger brother 'Mick' has been a heavy beer drinker for at least three decades with a high-stress career. When he retired, his drinking escalated. He received a DUI which resulted in court-ordered mandatory visits at a local AA meeting for one year. The court also had a blow-and-go breathalyzer installed in his truck for three years.
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
"In sadness, I dissent": Sotomayor blasts conservative justices for upholding trans health care ban
The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors on Wednesday. The 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti lets stand a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The law would still allow puberty blockers and other hormone care for cisgender minors, meaning someone assigned female at birth couldn't receive a prescription for testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could. The three families and doctor who challenged the Tennessee law said that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating based on sex. Tennessee argued that the law is based on age and medical purpose, not sex. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts left the issue to the states: 'We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' The decision sets a precedent for the 25 states that have bans on pediatric gender-affirming care. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent,' Sotomayor wrote. Tennessee argued that the ban protects children from 'experimental' medical treatment, despite major U.S. medical and mental health organizations supporting gender-affirming care, saying it's backed by science and even medically necessary care that improves transgender youth's health and well-being.'Gender-affirming care is medically necessary for treating gender dysphoria and is backed by decades of peer-reviewed research, clinical experience, and scientific consensus,' Dr. Susan J. Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a statement. Tyler Hack, founder of the Christopher Street Project, said: 'There aren't words strong enough to describe how shameful, cruel, and morally corrupt this ruling is. Access to gender-affirming care is life-or-death.' 'The Supreme Court should know: this domino effect of suffering and more suffering is on their hands,' Hack said. The Trump administration is also eliminating the option for LGBTQ+ individuals who call the 988 Suicide Hotline to press 3 and connect with someone who specializes in LGBTQ+ mental health. Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr, the first transgender legislator elected in her state, addressed the ruling and 988 changes on Bluesky: 'These bastards want us all dead.'
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge says it's too late to order recovery of Trump officials' Signal messages
A federal judge said Friday it's too late to order the recovery of already-deleted Signal messages from key members of President Trump's Cabinet, largely rejecting a request from an oversight group to get involved. But U.S. District Judge James Boasberg did order acting National Archivist and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to ask Attorney General Pam Bondi to take steps to preserve Signal chats across the government at risk of being deleted. 'At this juncture, the Court largely denies American Oversight's slew of requests and will instead grant only narrower relief,' the judge wrote. American Oversight, a group that regularly files records lawsuits against the federal government, sued five top Trump officials following revelations that they discussed a military strike in a group chat on the encrypted messaging app — and unintentionally included a journalist. They had asked the judge to order the officials to preserve all Signal communications and recover chats that had been deleted. However, Boasberg noted, American Oversight's own 'emphatically stated' representation to the court was that destroyed Signal messages cannot be recovered and to issue the directive would be fruitless. The challengers' 'hardline stance' that deleted Signal messages are gone for good overshadows their later efforts to suggest recovering the messages might be possible, especially if the nation's intelligence agencies were to try. 'Although Plaintiff tries to walk that stance back — claiming in its Reply that recovery is feasible '[r]egardless of Signal's statement of policy,' — that belated assertion wilts in the face of its repeated claims to the contrary in both its Amended Complaint and Motion,' Boasberg said. Though Boasberg ordered Rubio to ask Bondi to act on the messages 'not yet gone with the wind,' he also noted that the attorney general has the discretion to ignore that request. Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic's editor in chief, revealed the Signal group chat after he was unintentionally added to it by now-former national security adviser Mike Waltz. The Trump officials used the encrypted chat to discuss a strike on the Houthis in Yemen. More than a dozen top officials, like Vice President Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, were part of the chat. However, only five were sued: Hegseth, Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, said in a statement that the ruling affirms that Trump administration officials are not above the law and the records of their official actions belong to the American people. 'It should never have required court intervention to compel the acting Archivist and other agency heads to perform their basic legal duties, let alone to refer the matter to the Attorney General for enforcement,' she said. 'But because they failed to act, the court has now stepped in to order what the law already requires.' Chukwu added that the group expects 'immediate compliance.' 'And if they drag their feet or fail to act, we are fully prepared to pursue further legal action to ensure government records, which belong to the public, are preserved and protected.' Updated at 7:08 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
