CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES,
RULINGS, AND RELATED CASE
Pursuant to Rule 28(a)(1) of the General Rules of this Court, appellant hereby states as follows:
A. Parties and Amici: The parties below and in this court are the defendant-appellant, Robert A. xxxxxxxx, and the plaintiff-appellee, United States of America. There are no intervenors or amici, either in the district court or in this Court.
B. Rulings Under Review: In this appeal, Mr. xxxxxxxx challenges the sentence imposed on him by the district court on August 7, 1996 (judgment entered on August 9, 1996). APP. 150. (1) Specifically, Mr. xxxxxxxx challenges the sentencing court's calculation of the loss amount, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2F1.1, and the court's refusal to depart downwards, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2F1.1, comment. (n.10). See APP. 138-141.
C: Related Cases: This case has not been before this Court or any other court previously.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
STATUTES AND SENTENCING GUIDELINES
Authorities principally relied upon are marked with an *
ISSUES PRESENTED
I. WHETHER, IN AN UNDERCOVER FRAUD STING WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED THE AMOUNT OF THE "LOSS" AND WHERE THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF ANY ACTUAL LOSS TO ANY THIRD PARTY, THE SENTENCING COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CALCULATE THE LOSS AMOUNT, PURSUANT TO U.S.S.G. 2F1.1, AS ZERO (WHILE RETAINING THE DISCRETION TO DEPART UPWARD TO REFLECT THE DEFENDANT'S TRUE CULPABILITY)?
II. WHETHER, IF THE COURT WERE CORRECT IN CALCULATING THE LOSS AMOUNT BASED ON THE DOLLAR VALUES SET BY THE UNDERCOVER FBI AGENT, THE COURT MISUNDERSTOOD ITS ABILITY TO DEPART DOWNWARDS, PURSUANT TO U.S.S.G. 2F1.1, COMMENT. (N.10), WHERE THE SENTENCING COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THE LOSS FIGURE OVERSTATED THE TRUE CULPABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT?
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
The pertinent statute and sentencing guidelines appear in the addendum to this brief.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
NO.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v.
ROBERT A. xxxxxxxx, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
(PUBLIC COPY -- SEALED MATERIAL DELETED)
JURISDICTION
The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3231. The notice of appeal having been filed within the ten-day period set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 4(b), this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3742 and 28 U.S.C. 1291.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 21, 1995, an eighteen-count superseding indictment was filed against Robert xxxxxxxx. APP. 9-14. The first count charging bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1344 and 2, arose from the deposit of a Washington Area Tennis Patrons Foundation check in the amount of $28,759.97. Counts two through six also alleged violations of section 1344, and arose from an undercover sting during which Mr. xxxxxxxx, following directions from an F.B.I. agent, provided checks to that agent on five occasions. Counts seven through seventeen, referring to the same transactions as set forth in counts two though six, alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. 513(a) (counterfeit securities) for possession of the forged checks. Count eighteen alleged a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1702 (obstruction of correspondence), and arose from a single occasion when Mr. xxxxxxxx allegedly opened another individual's mail.
On December 6, 1995, pursuant to a plea agreement (APP. 15-21), Mr. xxxxxxxx pleaded guilty to count two of the superseding indictment, alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1344 and arising from his giving the undercover F.B.I. agent a check in the amount of $34,755.75. APP. 22-33.
On May 30, 1996, after the filing of numerous memoranda by both the defendant and the government (APP. 34-42, 46, 52, 67-96), the court issued a written opinion rejecting Mr. xxxxxxxx's arguments on loss calculation and his request for a downward departure, finding instead that the defendant's sentence should be based on the total amount of the forged checks, $535,592.35. APP. 138-41.
On August 7, 1996, in accordance with its loss finding, the court sentenced Mr. xxxxxxxx to eighteen months in prison, the bottom of the applicable guideline range, and three years of supervised release. The court also imposed a $50 special assessment. The court permitted Mr. xxxxxxxx to self-surrender. APP. 142-49 (transcript of sentencing), 150-53 (Judgment and Commitment Order).
On August 8, 1996, Mr. xxxxxxxx filed a notice of appeal with this Court. APP. 154. On September 10, 1996, the sentencing court granted Mr. xxxxxxxx's motion for release pending appeal. APP. 155.
FACTS
This case arises primarily from an undercover operation in which an F.B.I. agent obtained forged checks from Mr. xxxxxxxx. The agent told Mr. xxxxxxxx to whom the checks should be made out and for what amount, and Mr. xxxxxxxx complied with the agent's instructions. After the agent obtained eleven checks totaling more than $500,000 from Mr. xxxxxxxx, the government terminated the sting and arrested him. None of the checks obtained by the agent were negotiated and there was never any evidence that the bank accounts on which the checks were drawn were open, much less that they had funds on deposit sufficient to cover the checks had they been negotiated.
A. The Offense Conduct
In January of 1995, Mr. xxxxxxxx worked for Anthony xxxxxxx, a man older than Mr.
xxxxxxxx and with whom Mr. xxxxxxxx was having<71"iʾgPgcc{#c=^%kdHKNyh*p3m/ӥDyy%=^
K!YzKv?*KNlpI<0ڦv,HSR`<,Pt1e|
%b=#UA`I"pކAh,H.`Ar^v8+JD6Mr13uIE2H?9
ix$6dSRZmtrci*װ41~ ;1Tzy1G,Gm}kc|݁0~Y!h.Y:_By0eD5yok3#ؤ:?MAc_v21ENk5bae0aI+ƁV6%ȈutQ:}d_Ezxk1cdlq ~WzB}=mQ~u*E;p:(00ͨ=:U\
y*nMq1}g,7Ť!NZgY3t0COu5,Araey
yU11e8T4}dOORze~1-(b@+ uވ(;5W
y'HcW{1~ a#$- u%!QEI}djtskco/-ϪyhH.,<Nqf`Mu*7`*ׁI84
u:v{,NII5~ee
&(1V15~v#Q
o+YgK{ c|-"S Au9-UN
y0myrk( -,Ҥ-?S }^xt Y8mtZi*"{ by(h,H0w6& V},iro(by(h.,HMy2N,Kaeem(Ӫb(Y!hԈ>1^Gy ,V}1imc-դ-?r bU[^
FKp@Kdy*fE'H:50pz/q",k1&x6צ0$0A"