Sentencing – fraud — reasonableness

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals

CRIMINAL

Sentencing

Fraud; reasonableness

Where a fraud defendant exploited personal relationships over a long period of time, an above-guideline sentence was reasonable.

“Scott also argues that his 120-month sentence, which was substantially higher than the calculated 63 to 78 month range, is unreasonable. First, he asserts that the sentence presumes an excessive degree of loss suffered by three victims—Marc Calabria, Dan Palay, and Paul Slavik. He points to the court’s statements at sentencing that ‘Paul Slavik invested $180,000,’ that Calabria sent a letter stating that Scott ‘swindled [him] and his family to the tune of $2.6 million,’ and that Palay believed that Scott ‘swindled me and my family out of hundreds of thousands of dollars . . . .’ It is true that these figures (taken from a so-called ‘synopsis’ of victim statements) do not track those listed on the government’s ‘Loss/ Restitution Summary’ spreadsheet identifying the known victim investors and their loss amounts, but any discrepancies here are harmless because the district court applied only the figures on the restitution spreadsheet and Scott stipulated to those figures at sentencing. See United States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660, 666 (7th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the court explained that a within-guidelines sentence for Scott was inadequate because he exploited his personal relationships with the victims over a long period of time; the court did not mention the loss amount for any particular victim.”

Affirmed.

10-3241 U.S. v. Scott

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Darrah, J., Per Curiam.