Sentencing – Mortgage fraud – amount of loss

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Mortgage fraud; amount of loss

Where the district court made no findings and gave no explanation for its calculation of amount of loss in a mortgage fraud scheme, the sentence must be reversed.

“The court adopted the presentence report, but it did not address Leiskunas’s position regarding the amount of loss that was reasonably foreseeable to him. Leiskunas argued in his sentencing memorandum and again at his sentencing hearing that $1,792,000 could not be attributed to him in reasonably foreseeable loss because he had no idea that the properties were going to go into foreclosure. ‘A sentencing court commits procedural error by not adequately explaining its choice of sentence.’ United States v. Garcia-Oliveros, 639 F.3d 380, 381 (7th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). And some ‘statement of the district court’s reasoning is necessary for this court to be able to meaningfully review its decision.’ United States v. Marion, 590 F.3d 475, 477 (7th Cir. 2009) (remand of district court’s denial of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). Here, the lack of explanation by the district court in attributing $1,792,000 to Leiskunas in reasonably foreseeable loss means we cannot meaningfully review the court’s decision. And, because of the court’s silence, we cannot be sure of the effect that Leiskunas’s argument had, or could have had, on the court’s sentencing decision. United States v. Villegas- Miranda, 579 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2005)). See also United States v. Johnson, 643 F.3d 545, 549 (7th Cir. 2011) (‘A sentencing court need not respond expressly to every argument a defendant makes, but it must address all of a defendant’s principal arguments that are not so weak as to not merit discussion.’) (citations and internal quotations omitted). These procedural standards operate as safeguards against unintentional infringements on defendants’ rights.”

Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.

10-2160 U.S. v. Leiskunas

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Gettleman, J.,Williams, J.

Full Text