Case ID: f-appx_383/html/0087-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael SCHLUSSEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-3315-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 7, 2010.
    
      Michael Hurwitz, Hurwitz Stampur & Roth, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Julian J. Moore (Preet Bharara, United States Attorney, and Michael A. Levy and William J. Harrington, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Following trial in the District Court, a jury found defendant-appellant Michael Schlussel guilty of one count of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, id. § 1349. The Court sentenced him principally to 108 months’ imprisonment and restitution of $646,750.

Schlussel brings this appeal arguing that the evidence at trial was insufficient for the jury to find him guilty on the conspiracy count. He also claims that in calculating his advisory sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.), the District Court erroneously applied two enhancements: a four-level role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 and a two-level enhancement for use of sophisticated means under § 2Bl.l(b)(9).

With respect to the conspiracy count, after reviewing the trial record and “crediting every inference that could have been drawn in the government’s favor,” United States v. Chavez, 549 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir.2008), we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to reach a guilty verdict.

With respect to the sentence, we detect no error in the District Court’s calculation of Schlussel’s advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir.2008) (en banc). The record adequately supports the District Court’s application of enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 and § 2Bl.l(b)(9), and the Court’s findings in applying those enhancements were “sufficiently specific to permit meaningful appellate review.” United States v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442, 452 (2d Cir.2009).

We have considered all of Schlussel’s arguments on appeal and have determined that they are meritless.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the July 30, 2009 judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.