Sentencing — commodities fraud

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — commodities fraud

The district court did not err in finding that the defendants held themselves out as officers or directors of a “futures commission merchant” and enhancing their sentences.

“The district court did not err in finding that One World was a ‘futures commission merchant.’ As noted, the defendants acknowledge that Walsh ‘had some carryover futures clients that followed him to One World’ and that ‘One World had some futures customers.’ Their PSRs provide factual support for the finding that One World provided services for both futures and forex trading to its customers. See Walsh PSR 6 (describing One World as a ‘futures and [forex] trading Company’); Martin PSR 6 (same). The presence of these facts supporting the guideline’s application distinguishes this case from United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406 F.3d 845, 846-47 (7th Cir. 2005). There, we found plain error in the application of a sentence enhancement based on an erroneous view of a fact—that the defendant had been convicted of a crime of violence. Id. at 849-50. In addition, the government and we had focused on the lack of a specific objection to the presentence report rather than any admission in the plea agreement. Id. at 847-48. The defendants do not contend that a company which provides futures trading services fails to qualify as a ‘futures commission merchant.’ The district court did not err in applying the 4-level increase to the defendants as officers or directors of a futures commission merchant.”

Affirmed.

12-1503 & 12-1504 U.S. v. Walsh

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kendall, J., Tinder, J.