Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-08-03717/USCOURTS-ca3-08-03717-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Schollmeyer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

Honorable Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 08-3717

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JAMES SCHOLLMEYER, Appellant

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 1-08-cr-00244-1)

District Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 8, 2010

 

Before: AMBRO, SMITH and MICHEL,* Circuit Judges

(Filed: March 10, 2010)

 

OPINION

 

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

James Schollmeyer pled guilty in the District Court of New Jersey to one count of

Case: 08-3717 Document: 003110052496 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2010
1

The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). “The abuse-of-discretion standard

applies to both our procedural and substantive reasonableness inquiries.” United States v.

Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc). 

2

mail fraud and was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment. He now appeals that sentence

as substantively unreasonable. We affirm.1

I. 

In 2003, Schollmeyer began working for Superior Mortgage Company in

Parsippany, New Jersey as a senior loan officer and assistant branch manager. In January

2007, he deposited five mortgage broker checks payable to Superior, totaling $24,070.25,

into his personal bank account. His employer discovered Schollmeyer’s theft and

confronted him. Schollmeyer apologized and repaid the company $20,110.50. At the

time, his employer did not call law enforcement. 

Schollmeyer continued to steal from Superior over the next four months. He

opened an unauthorized account in the name of Superior Mortgage, and diverted 27

broker fee checks, totaling $200,331.17, into this account. He was once again caught by

his employer and subsequently fired. The FBI began investigating and, according to the

Government, Schollmeyer began cooperating after an agent visited his home. In March

2008, Schollmeyer pled guilty to one count of mail fraud (in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1341). 

He was sentenced in March 2008. The United States Probation Office

determined that his total offense level was 18, which included a three-level decrease for

Case: 08-3717 Document: 003110052496 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2010
3

his acceptance of responsibility. Schollmeyer’s Guideline range was 27 to 33 months’

imprisonment. At sentencing, the District Court considered Schollmeyer’s arguments

for a downward variance, but declined to vary from the Guidelines range. The Court

sentenced Schollmeyer to 27 months’ imprisonment, followed by five years of

supervised release. He timely appealed. 

II.

Schollmeyer does not contend that the District Court committed any procedural

error at sentencing. Rather, he argues that the Court gave insufficient weight to three

mitigating factors making the ultimate sentence substantively unreasonable: (1) the

psychological diagnosis report that Schollmeyer suffered from “extreme optimism”; (2)

his “extraordinary” acceptance of responsibility; and (3) his community service. We

disagree.

“Our substantive review requires us not to focus on one or two factors, but on the

totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2009)

(en banc) (citing Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597 (2007)). “[I]f the district

court’s sentence is procedurally sound, we will affirm it unless no reasonable sentencing

court would have imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons

the district court provided.” Id. at 568.

Schollmeyer first argues that his psychological diagnosis of “extreme optimism”

warranted greater mitigating weight by the Court. He claims that because of this

condition, he believed he would be able to repay everyone and not suffer any negative

Case: 08-3717 Document: 003110052496 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/10/2010
4

consequences. 

Next, Schollmeyer contends that the District Court should have given a lesser

sentence because of his “extraordinary” acceptance of responsibility by turning himself

in, cooperating with law enforcement, and beginning restitution payments, all before

charges had been filed. 

 Lastly, Schollmeyer argues that his participation in a community service

organization, which assists individuals facing foreclosure, should have been given

greater weight. 

The District Court considered a variety of circumstances under 18 U.S.C. § 3553

(a), including the matters raised by Schollmeyer in this appeal, in fashioning his

sentence. The Court noted the seriousness of the crime, the nature and circumstances of

his offense, the amount of money involved in the offense, the psychological evaluation,

Schollmeyer’s volunteer activities, and his acceptance of responsibility. Having

reviewed all that information, the District Court reached its decision to sentence

Schollmeyer to 27 months in prison, at the low end of the Guidelines range. The Court’s

decision not to give certain mitigating factors the weight that Schollmeyer contends they

deserve does not render his sentence substantively unreasonable. See United States v.

Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 546 (3d Cir. 2007).

After our review of the record, we cannot say that no reasonable sentencing court

would have imposed the sentence meted out by the District Court. Tomko, 562 F.3d at

568. Accordingly, we affirm that sentence.

Case: 08-3717 Document: 003110052496 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/10/2010