Case ID: f-appx_572/html/0841-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia LEBRON, a.k.a. Patricia Kumer, Paul Gogolewski, John W. Lebron, Defendants-Appellants. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Lebron, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 13-10519, 13-12054.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    July 21, 2014.
    Michelle Thresher Taylor, James A. Muench, Robert E. O’Neill, Thomas Nelson Palermo, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Howard C. Anderson, Federal Public Defender’s Office, John Edward Fernandez, Law Office of John E. Fernandez, Tampa, FL, Robert Godfrey, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Ryan Thomas Trusko-ski, Ryan Thomas Truskoski, PA, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WILSON, PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

In connection with their conspiracy to engage in loan and credit application fraud, wire fraud, and wire fraud affecting a financial institution, John Lebrón and Paul Gogolewski appeal their sentences, and Patricia Lebrón appeals her conviction for wire fraud. On appeal, they argue:

1. That the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury’s conviction of Patricia Lebrón for wire fraud affecting a financial institution (Count 7);
2. That the district court erred by applying the U.S.S.G. § 3Al.l(b) vulnerable-victim enhancement to John Lebron’s offense level when calculating his guidelines range;
3. That John Lebron’s sentence was substantively unreasonable; and
4. That the district court’s forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $353,400.00 was erroneous because it included the consideration of acquitted conduct (Count 7).

Having thoroughly considered the briefs and the record, and after the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error.

Nevertheless, we note that the forfeiture money judgment incorrectly states that Gogolewski was convicted on Count 7. Accordingly, we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the forfeiture money judgment to state that Gogolewski was convicted only on Count 6 of the Superseding Indictment.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART TO CORRECT APPELLANT GOGOLEWSKI’S FORFEITURE MONEY JUDGMENT.