Navigation

Archive | acceptance of responsibility

Monday, April 24th, 2023

Appellant’s submission of (three) “forged letters” of support, to the sentencing court, results in a 5-level increase in offense level: a two level upward adjustment for obstruction of justice (U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1) and the denial of a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility (id. § 3E1.1). United States v. Strange, No. 21-2923, __ F.4th ____ (2d Cir. Apr. 17, 2023) (C.J.J.’s Pooler, Wesley, and Menashi).

Background

Appellant worked for a company that (generously) matched the charitable donations of its employees “up to $25,000 in donations per employee annually.” Opinion (“Op”) at 2. From 2015 to 2019, Appellant he “carried out a scheme to defraud” by “submitt[ing] fake documentation purporting to show that he, as well as some of his coworkers, had made significant charitable donations to an entity that Strange himself controlled.” Op at 2-3. The coworkers “had no knowledge of the submissions.” Op at 3. Appellant received about $600,000 from the company’s matching program, which he used “for personal expenses.” Id.

Appellant ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343). And his initial Guidelines range was “33 to 41 months incarceration.” Op at 3.

But a few days before sentencing, he submitted three letters “each encouraging the imposition of a probationary sentence rather than imprisonment.”Op at 3. The government …

Posted by
Categories: acceptance of responsibility, obstruction of justice, wire fraud

Posted By
Categories: acceptance of responsibility, obstruction of justice, wire fraud

Continue Reading
Tuesday, June 9th, 2020

District Court Erred in Denying 3rd Point for Acceptance of Responsibility, Despite a Government Motion on the Defendant’s Behalf, Based on Its Belief that the Defendant’s Suppression Motion Caused the Government to Do Work that Overlapped with Trial Preparation

Reading a 45-page opinion about the “third point” in the acceptance-of-responsibility Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), makes one wonder whether Booker was but a dream. Why, one might ask, do judges in 2020 care so much about a miniscule adjustment to the offense level when they can simply go outside the advisory range and impose whatever sentence they believe just under the circumstances? Perhaps numbers comfort those tasked with punishing their fellow humans without the security blanket of mandatory directives. Who knows.

That beef aside, this is a fine opinion by Judge Lynch – thorough, well-written, and well-reasoned as always. In United States v. Marilyn Vargas, No. 19-463, __ F.3d __ (2d Cir. June 9, 2020), the Court held that District Judge Caproni erred in denying the 3rd acceptance point following the defendant’s guilty plea, despite a Government motion on the defendant’s behalf, based on her view that the …

Posted by
Categories: acceptance of responsibility

Posted By
Categories: acceptance of responsibility

Continue Reading
Tuesday, January 2nd, 2018

Second Circuit Reverses Denial of USSG §3E.1.1(b) Sentencing Reduction

Today the Second Circuit vacated a sentence as procedurally unreasonable because the sentencing judge withheld the third point of a Guideline reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The summary order in United States v. Reyes, No. 16-2936 (Winter, Lynch, Droney) (appeal from Townes, J., EDNY), is available here.

Mr. Reyes was sentenced to life imprisonment after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and second-degree obstruction of justice murder. The government consistently stated that he deserved a full three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The district court granted a two-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a), but denied an additional one-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b) on the ground that Mr. Reyes lied during his sentencing testimony about whether he was present when the murder was committed. (The defendant maintained at sentencing that he hired someone to kill a witness to a bank fraud scheme, but told …

Posted by
Categories: acceptance of responsibility, procedural reasonableness

Posted By
Categories: acceptance of responsibility, procedural reasonableness

Continue Reading
Tuesday, December 12th, 2017

Second Circuit Vacates Above-Guidelines Illegal Reentry Sentence As Procedurally and Substantively Unreasonable

Today the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating a 60-month illegal reentry sentence as both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The opinion in United States v. Latchman Singh, No. 16-1111 (Kearse, Hall, Chin) (appeal from Forrest, J., SDNY), is available here. Judge Chin’s opinion touches on a number of recurring sentencing issues, and includes an important analysis of the distinction between presenting mitigating evidence and avoiding responsibility for one’s crimes.

Mr. Singh pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry after being removed following an aggravated felony conviction, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). His record includes a number of convictions for non-violent offenses, several of which occurred more than a decade ago. The 15-21 Guidelines range for Mr. Singh’s sentence reflected a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Prior to sentencing, he wrote a letter to the district court expressing remorse his actions and explaining the pressures that …

Posted by
Categories: acceptance of responsibility, illegal reentry, procedural reasonableness, sentencing, sentencing findings, substantive reasonableness

Posted By
Categories: acceptance of responsibility, illegal reentry, procedural reasonableness, sentencing, sentencing findings, substantive reasonableness

Continue Reading
Wednesday, July 5th, 2017

Circuit overturns decision to withhold acceptance of responsibility despite guilty plea

In an opinion issued today, the Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by SDNY Judge Katherine B. Forrest to deny the defendant a reduction in offense level based on acceptance of responsibility despite his guilty plea.  You can access the decision in United States v. Delacruz, No. 15-4174, here.

The Circuit held that “[I]n light of a defendant’s due process right to contest alleged factual errors in his PSR, his good-faith objections to material PSR statements that he disputes does not provide a proper foundation for denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility credit.”  Op. at 22.  If the defendant objects to, and denies, facts that are neither part of the count(s) of conviction nor “relevant conduct” within the meaning of U.S.S.G. Section 1B1.3, the District Court may not deny an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction based on the defendant’s objections or denials.  Op. at 28. It may, however, consider in its analysis pursuant …

Posted by
Categories: acceptance of responsibility

Posted By
Categories: acceptance of responsibility

Continue Reading
Saturday, August 13th, 2011

Point of Controversy

United States v. Lee, No. 10-493-cr (2d Cir. July 26, 2011) (Parker, Chin, CJJ, Korman, DJ)

For the many years, the third acceptance of responsibility point – although to be completely faithful to guideline lingo, it is a “level,” not a “point,” since “points” are for criminal history – was something of a given. As long as the defendant either confessed early on or pled guilty timely, the reduction was granted. Effective November 1, 2003, however, the Commission amended the language of this adjustment, guideline section 3E1.1(b), to require a government motion for the third point. The amended section indicates that such a motion should state “that the defendant has assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of his own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the government and the court …

Posted by
Categories: acceptance of responsibility, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: acceptance of responsibility, Uncategorized

Continue Reading