Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02272/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02272-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John K. Finn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2272

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Northern District of Iowa. 

John K. Finn, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 13, 2006

Filed: November 17, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John K. Finn pled guilty to ten counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1343, and he was sentenced by the district court1

 to 135 months. Finn appeals,

arguing that his sentence is unreasonable, that his criminal history category overstates

the seriousness of his record, and that the court gave undue weight to the number of

his victims. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-2272 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2006 Entry ID: 2110544
-2-

Finn was charged with fifty counts of mail fraud in connection with an

investment scheme beginning in the mid 1990's and continuing until at least 2003.

During this time, Finn received more than $3.7 million from over 100 investors, many

of whom were elderly Iowans attempting to secure their retirement accounts. He pled

guilty to ten of the fifty counts. The district court calculated a base offense level of

7 and added enhancements for Finn's abuse of his position of trust, the vulnerability

of the victims, the number of victims, and the amount of the loss. His resulting total

offense level of 30 combined with his criminal history category II resulted in an

advisory guideline range of 108-135 months. After considering the 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a) factors and denying Finn's motion for a downward variance based on over

representation of his criminal history, the court sentenced Finn at the top of the

guideline range to 135 months imprisonment. 

Finn argues that the sentence at the top of the guideline range is unreasonable

because the calculated criminal history category II is based on offenses unrelated to

his investment scheme (a deferred judgment entered for driving while intoxicated and

a conviction for selling alcohol to minors). He also asserts that the sentence is

unreasonable because it was based in part on the court's finding that he defrauded 112

victims when not all of the people who lost money by investing with him were victims

of his fraud, there were only 108 victims listed in the presentence investigation report,

and an enhancement for victimizing between 50 and 249 victims had already been

applied. Although he did not contest the number of victims and amount of loss

calculated by the district court, his impression was that his sentence would be the

same whether there were 51 victims or 249 victims. 

We review a defendant's sentence for reasonableness. United States v. Hadash,

408 F.3d 1080, 1083 (8th Cir. 2005). Since Finn was sentenced within the guideline

range, his sentence is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Cadenas, 445 F.3d

1091, 1094 (8th Cir. 2006). 

Appellate Case: 06-2272 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2006 Entry ID: 2110544
-3-

The district court discussed its reasoning for sentencing Finn at the top of the

undisputed guideline range and stated that it had "considered carefully" Finn's

argument that he should receive a lesser sentence because his criminal history

category overstated the seriousness of his past criminal conduct. The court also stated

that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and imposed a sentence at the

top of the range because of the devastating effect Finn's actions had on his victims, its

perception that Finn lacked remorse, and the effect Finn's attempts to lull his victims

had on their health. Although Finn now argues that he did not victimize more than

100 victims and that the district court should not have factored the number of victims

into its decision to sentence him at the top of the advisory guideline range, he failed

to raise this argument in the district court and he has not identified which investors

were wrongly considered victims. Moreover, the court's finding that there were

substantially more victims than the 50 needed to qualify Finn for the four level

sentencing enhancement is supported by the record. 

After examining the record and the district court's explicit consideration of all

the facts and circumstances of the offense, we conclude that the sentence imposed was

not unreasonable. See United States v. Hawkman, 438 F.3d 879, 884 (8th Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2272 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/2006 Entry ID: 2110544