Sentencing — reasonableness

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — reasonableness

A total sentence of 109 months for bank fraud counts was not unreasonable.

“It was not plain error for the district court to accept Arojojoye’s guilty plea to Count 36. Although it was error to sentence Arojojoye under the guidelines in effect on the date of his sentencing, and not on the dates he committed his crimes, under Peugh and our subsequent precedent the error was harmless because the district court clearly stated it would impose the same sentence regardless. The district court’s conclusion that Arojojoye managed or supervised two codefendants was not plainly erroneous. The district court also did not commit clear error by holding Arojojoye accountable for the $441,899.03 loss resulting from the stolen Navistar checks because, when considered in context and in cumulation, this loss was reasonably foreseeable. Finally, Arojojoye waived his right to contest the district court’s imposition of the sophisticated means enhancement, and even if he did not, the district court did not commit plain error by imposing it.”

Affirmed.

13-2224 U.S. v. Arojojoye

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Guzmán, J., Manion, J.