2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-25-2006 

# U SA v . Gr a s so P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4048

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Gr as s o " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 420. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/420NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 05- 4048 and 05- 4049

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M I CHAEL J . GRASS O, J R. A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m . N os . 00- cr - 00051 and 01- cr - 00783) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . S tew a rt D a lze ll

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember11, 2006 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , M cK E E and B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed Sept ember25, 2006)

OP I NI ON2

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. M i chae l J . G r as s o, J r . , appea l s hi s j udgm ent s of convi ct i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. A l t hough he r ai s es fouri s s ues , t he m os ts ubs t ant i al cl ai m i s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byi ncr eas i ng hi s s ent ence i n one of the ca s es fol l ow i ng a r emand. T her e i s a s om ew hatcompl i cat ed pr ocedur al backgr ound that m ustbe revi ew ed to und ers t and the is sues befo re us. I. In F eb rua ry2 0 0 0 , G rasso w as in d ict ed in C ri m inal N o . 0 0 -51 fo r m ail fra u d , w ir e fr aud, and moneyl aunder i ng fors el l i ng fr audul entw or k- at - hom e s chemes fr om 1997 thr ough 1999. I n N ovember2000, a s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entw as fi l ed, w hi ch r educe d t he num berof m oneyl aunder i ng count s fr om 508 t o 482, and w hi ch adde d a cha r ge of obs truct i on of j us t i ce, bas ed on G r as s o’ s at t empt t o acc es s funds fr ozen bythe G overnm ent . I n D ece m ber2001, G r as s o w as i ndi ct ed i n C r i m i nal N o. 01- 783 w hi ch char ged hi m w i t h t w o count s of for geryand one c ountof obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce, bas ed on his renew ed att em pt t o g ai n acce ss t o frozen fun ds. T he o bst ruct i on of just i ce cha rge al so al l eged thatG r as s o for ged the s i gnatur es of both a di s t r i ctj udge, the H onor abl e J ay W al dm an, and a de put ycl erk. O n February7, 2002, the D i s t r i ctC our ts ever ed the obs truct i on of j us t i ce c ount( C ount13) i n C r i m i nal N o. 00- 51 and cons ol i dat ed thatcount w i th C r i m i nal N o. 01- 783. A ft era tw o- w eek tr i al befor e the H onor abl e B ruce W . K auff m an, G r as s o w as3

found gui l t yof al l count s i n t he s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm enti n N o. 00- 51, w i t h t he exc ept i on o f t wo c o u n t s t h a twe r e d i s mi s s e d d u r i n g th e tr i a l . Gr a s s o th e r e a f t e rp l e d g u i l t yt o two count s of for geryand one c ountof obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce i n N o. 01- 783 and the s ever ed obs truct i on of j us t i ce c ounti n N o. 00- 51 befor e the H onor abl e B er l e M . Schi l l er . T he cas es w er e eve ntual l ycons ol i dat ed fors ent enci ng befor e J udge Schi l l er . O n t he money l aunder i ng and fr aud convi ct i ons , N o. 00- 51, J udge Schi l l ers ent ence d G r as s o t o 97 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, th re e y e a rs’ su p e rv ise d re lea se , a f in e o f $ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 , res titu tio n in the amountof $761, 126. 39, and a s peci al as s es s m entof $49, 500. O n t he obs t ruct i on of ju stic e c o u n t, Ju d g e S c h ill e r se n ten c e d G ra ss o to 1 5 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, 10 m o n th s to run concurr ent l yand 5 mont hs t o run cons ecut i vel yw i t h t he s ent ence i n N o. 00- 51, a fi ne o f $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 a n d a $ 3 0 0 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t. G r as s o t i m el yfi l ed hi s appea l i n N o. 00- 51 on February13, 2003. H e ar gued that i n l i ghtof U ni t ed St at es v. Sci al abba, 282 F. 3d 475 ( 7th C i r . ) , cert . deni ed, 537 U . S. 1071 ( 2002) , he s houl d be s ent ence d underthe fr aud, r atherthan the moneyl aunder i ng, gui del i nes . O n appea l , t hi s courtuphel d G r as s o’ s convi ct i ons and s ent ence s . U ni t ed S tat es v . G rasso , 3 8 1 F . 3 d 1 6 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), v ac ated , 5 4 4 U . S . 9 4 5 (20 0 5 ). H o w ev er, w e v a c a ted th e re stitu tio n o rd e r a n d re m a n d e d th a t p o rtio n o f th e c a se . Id . at 1 7 2 . W h ile G r as s o’ s appea l w as pendi ng, he fi l ed a l ett erpur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 28( j ) r ai s i ng a c h a llen g e to h is s e n ten c e in lig h t o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s r e c e n tlyiss u e d d e c isio n in B l akel yv. W as hi ngt on, 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) . A ppr oxi m at el ytw o w eeks l at er , w e i s s ued4

ourdeci s i on w i t houtm ent i oni ng t he B l akel yi s s ue. G r as s o t hen fi l ed a pe t i t i on forw r i tof ce r t i or ar i chal l engi ng hi s convi ct i ons and sen tenc es. T h ere af

ter, the S u p rem e C o u rtissue d it s d ec isi o n in U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , on J anuary12, 2005. O n M ar ch 28, 2005, the C our tgr ant ed G ra ss o ’s p e tit io n f

o r w rit o f

c e rtio ra ri, v a c a ted th e ju d g m e n t, an d re m a n d e d th e c a se to thi s c ou r tfo rfu r t he rc on s i de r a t i on i n l i gh tof Booke r . G r a s s o v . U ni t e d St a t e s , 54 4 U. S. 9 4 5 (2 0 0 5 ). O n re m a n d , this c o u rt v a c a ted G ra ss o ’s s e n ten c e a n d re m a n d e d th e c a se to the D i s tr i ctC our tforr es ent enci ng. O n r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , the ca s e w as r eas s i gned fr om J udge Schi l l er , w ho r ecus ed due t o a conf

l i ct , t o t he H onor abl e St ew artD al zel l . J udge D al zel l ent er ed an amended or derdi r ect i ng t he part i es t o “[s ] ubm i tthei rvi ew s t o t he courtas t o t he r el evanc e, undert he Supr eme C our t ’ s B ookercal cul us , of def endant ’ s O ct ober6, 2002 l et t ert o A . R i char d G erber , E s qui r e ( w hi ch appa r ent l yhad notbeen pr evi ous l yaddr es s ed i n connec t i on w i t h t he def endant ’ s ear l i ers ent enci ng) . ” A pp. at448. T he r efe r ence d O ct ober6, 2002 l ett erw as s entbyG r as s o t o G erber , an att orney , i n an ef for tt o getthe l at t ert o us e hi s purpor t ed i nfl uence overJ udge K auff m an t o s ecur e a s ent ence ot hert han i m pr i s onm ent . A ppel l ee’ s Supp. A pp. at4. C ouns el forG r as s o ar gued thatJ udge Schi l l erhad bee n aw ar e of the l ett eratthe or i gi nal s ent enci ng hel d i n ear l yFebruary2003 beca us e the l ett eri t s el f w as t he r eas on thatthe ca s e had be en r eas s i gned t o hi m fr om J udge K auff

m an. H ow ever , J udge D al zel l found the l ett er“extr emel ydi s qui et i ng, ” A pp.T he G overnm ent ar gues t hat w e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on 1 t o r evi ew G r as s o’ s s ent ence beca us e it w as i m pos ed w i t hi n t he pr oper l y cal cul at ed gui del i ne ra nge. H ow ever , i n U ni t ed St at es v. C oo p er, 437 F. 3d 324, 328 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , w e hel d thatw e have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w s e n t e n c e s f o rr e a s o n a b l e n e s s u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3742( a)( 1) ( author i zi ng the appe al of s ent ence s i n vi ol at i on of la w ). 5 at567, and us ed i tas t he bas i s fori ncr eas i ng G r as s o’ s s ent ence i n N o. 01- 783. A tr es ent enci ng, J udge D al zel l r ei m pos ed the 97- m onth s ent ence on t he money l aunder i ng and fr aud cha r ges i n N o. 00- 51, and the $49, 500 as s es s m ent , butr educe d t he fi ne fr om $150, 000 t o $75, 000. I n N o. 01- 783, J udge D al zel l r ei m pos ed the $300 as s es s m ent , r educe d t he fi ne fr om $30, 000 t o $25, 000, and i ncr eas ed G r as s o’ s s ent ence fr om 15 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entt o 20 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , w i t h 10 m onths , r athert han th e in iti a l 5 m o n th s, to ru n c o n se c u tiv e lyto th e 9 7 -m o n th se n ten c e in N o . 0 0 -5 1 . It i s th is in c re a se th a t f

o rm s th e b a sis o f

G ra ss o ’s f

irst iss u e o n a p p e a l. II. G r as s o r ai s es fouri s s ues on t hi s appea l : ( 1) w hetheri tw as err orforthe D i s t r i ct C our tt o i ncr eas e hi s s ent ence atr es ent enci ng; ( 2) w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e; ( 3) w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l yenhanc ed hi s m oney 1 l a u n d e r i n g s e n t e n c e f

o ro b s t ru c t i o n o f

j u s t i c e ; a n d ( 4 ) wh e t h e rf o rp u rp o s e s o f

1 8 U. S . C. § 1 95 6(a) (1) (A )( i ) “pr oceed s” should be d efi ned as gross recei pts or netprofi t s.H ow ever , i n hi s l etter, G rasso di d s t at e the name of the 2 c a se a s f o llo w s: “ U

ni t ed Stat es of

A m er i ca v. Mi ch a el J. G r as s o, J r ., U .S . C t. A p p . 3 d C ir ., N o s . 0 3 -1 4 4 1 /0 3 -1 4 4 2 (C o n s o lid a te d ).” N o . 0 3 -1 4 4 2 is th e a p p e a l d o c k e t n u m b e r f o r N o . 0 1 -7 8 3 . 6 A. 1. G r as s o fi r s tar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r es ent enci ng i n N o. 01- 783 w as i m pr operbeca us e i tw as out s i de the s cope of the mandat e i s s ued bythi s cour ton M ay20, 2 0 0 5 . T h is c o n ten tio n is b a se d lar g e lyo n th e f a c t th a t G ra ss o ’s R u le 2 8 (j) le tter, f iled in r es pons e t o ourO r derof A pr i l 20, 2005, di d notr efe rt o t he obs t ruct i on char ges i n N o. 0 1 -7 8 3 . H o w e v e r, G ra ss o ’s a rg u m e n t m iss e s th e p o in t.

2 G r as s o fi l ed not i ces of appe al i n N os . 00- 51 and 01- 783 on February13, 2003, w hi ch w er e docke t ed i n t hi s courtas N os . 03- 1441, 03- 1442, r es pect i vel y . O uropi ni on dat ed A ugus t23, 2004 aff i r m ed G r as s o’ s convi ct i ons i n bot h cas es , butr emanded the m att er to the D istri ct C o u rtfo r reco n side rati o n o f th e re sti tuti o n o rde r on ly . H o w ev er, G r as s o pet i t i oned forw r i tof ce r t i or ar i on D ece m ber20, 2004 i n bot h N o. 00- 51 and N o. 01- 783. T he Supr eme C our tgr ant ed the pet i t i on, vaca t ed the j udgm ent , and r emanded th e c o n so lid a ted c a se to th is c o u rt. W e th e n re q u e ste d th a t G ra ss o in f o rm u s a s to w h e th e r h e w ish e d to c h a llen g e h is s e n ten c e u n d e r B o o k e r; h e re p lied th a t h e w ish e d to do s o. W e then r emanded t he ca s e t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t . B eca us e ourO r derr emandi ng the cons ol i dat ed ca s e appl i ed t o bot h cr i m i nal act i on num ber s , i tw as w el l w i t hi n t he7

author i tyof the D i s t r i ctC our tt o r es ent ence G r as s o i n bot h cas es . B eca us e G r as s o fi l ed hi s appea l t o t hi s courtand hi s pet i t i on i n t he Supr eme C our ti n bot h N o. 00- 51 and N o. 01- 783, r athert han onl yi n N o. 00- 51, he has no bas i s t o compl ai n t hathe w as r es ent ence d i n N o. 01- 783. 2. G r as s o nextar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r es ent enci ng i n N o. 01- 783 vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s t o due pr oces s and fr eedom fr om doubl e j eopar dy . G r as s o ar gues th a t h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts w e re v io late d b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t sta te a “ w h o lly l ogi cal ” r eas on fort he i ncr eas ed s ent ence . A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at17. I n N or t h C ar ol i na v. Pear ce, 395 U . S. 711 ( 1969) , t he Supr eme C our thel d thatdue pr oces s “r equi r es that vi ndi ct i venes s agai ns ta def endantforhavi ng s ucce s s ful l yat t acke d hi s fi r s tconvi ct i on m us tpl ayno par ti n . . . [r es ent enci ng] . ” I d. at725. I n or dert o ens ur e thati s the ca s e, t he C our tr equi r ed that“w heneve ra j udge i m pos es a more s ever e s ent ence upon a def endant a f te r a n e w tr ia l, th e re a s o n s f o r h is d o in g s o m u s t a f

f ir m a tiv e ly ap p e a r.” Id . a t 7 2 6 . W e have pr evi ous l ys t at ed that“[t ] hi s r equi r ementhas been r ead t o cr eat e ‘ a pr es um pt i on of v ind ict iven ess, w h ich m ayb e o v erc o m e o n lyb yo b jecti v e inf

o rm ati o n in the rec o rd justi fy ing the in cre ase d sen tenc e.” R o ck v . Z im m erm an , 9 5 9 F . 2 d 1 2 3 7 , 1 2 5 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) (q u o tin g U n ited S tate s v . G o o d w in , 4 5 7 U .S . 3 6 8 , 3 7 4 (1 9 8 2 )). H o w e v e r, th is pr es um pt i on does notappl yi n everycas e. I d. A s w e s t at ed i n Z i m m erm an, “the Pear ce pr es um pt i on does notappl yw her e the s econd s ent ence i s i m pos ed bya di ffe r entW e n o te th atG r as s o has notr ai s ed a c l ai m of ac tual 3 vindi ct i ven ess. 8 se n ten c e r a n d th e re c o rd p ro v id e s a f f irm a tiv e a ss u ra n c e th a t th e h a rsh e r se n ten c e re f lec ts s im p ly a f

re s h lo o k a t th e f

a c ts a n d a n in d e p e n d e n t e x e rc is e o f d is c re tio n .” Id . a t 1 2 5 7 . W hen the s econd s ent ence r“‘ pr ovi des an on- t he- r ecor d, w hol l yl ogi cal , non- vi ndi ct i ve r eas on fort he har s hers ent ence , ’ i ti s notnece s s aryforhi m orhert o i nvoke fa ct s not avai l abl e att he t i m e of the fi r s ts ent ence . ” I d. at1257- 58 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed i n t he or i gi nal ) ; s ee Texas v. M cC ul l ough, 475 U . S. 134, 140 ( 1986) . I n t he abs ence of the Pear ce pr es um pt i on, a part ychal l engi ng a s econd s ent ence m us tdemonstr at e ac tual vi ndi ct i venes s . See, e. g. , Z i m m erm an, 959 F. 2d at1258. T he Pear ce pr es um pt i on does notappl yi n t hi s cas e. T he r ecor d demonstr at es t hat Ju d g e D alze ll too k a f

resh loo k at th e f

ac ts an d ind ep en d en tl yex erc ised h is discreti o n ary author i tyi n s ent enci ng G r as s o t o an addi t i onal fi ve mont hs of i m pr i s onm enti n N o. 01- 7 8 3 . Ju d g e D alze ll ex p lai n ed that h e f o u n d G rasso ’s att em p t t o p ayR icha rd G erb er a br i be t o i nfl uence a fe der al j udge’ s di s pos i t i on of hi s cas e “e xtr emel ydi s qui et i ng. ” A pp. at567. H e s t at ed thatt he l ett ercompounded t he att empt s t o corr ode the s ent enci ng b e f o re J u d g e K a u f

f m a n a n d “ ra is e s th e q u e s tio n o f in c o rr ig ib ility . . . .” A p p . a t 5 6 2 . V in d ictiv e n e ss is a lso n e g a ted b yth e f a c t th a t Ju d g e D a lze ll red u c e d G ra ss o ’s f in e s in b o th N o . 0 0 -5 1 a n d N o . 0 1 -7 8 3 . G ra ss o se e k s to b o lste r h is a rg u m e n t b yn o tin g th a t h is 3 lette r to G e rb e r w a s a v a ilab le to Ju d g e S c h ill e r a t h is in iti a l se n ten c in g . Ju d g e D a lze ll9

ex p lai n ed that h e c am e to a d iffe ren t r esu ltthan d id Ju d g e S ch il ler, stat ing that “I d o n ’t know w hether[J udge Schi l l er ] knew about[the l ett er ] ornot . A l l I can s ayfors ur e i s t hat the O ct ober6, 2002 corr es pondence w as notal l uded t o i n anyw ay , s hape orform i n t he tr ans cr i ptof the Sent enci ng H ear i ng. ” A pp. at567- 68. W e al s o bel i eve i ti r r el evant w hetherJ udge Schi l l erw as aw ar e of G r as s o’ s s econd a t t empt t o i m pr oper l yi nfl uence a fede r al j udge. T he di s pos i t i ve fa cti s thatJ udge D al zel l l ooked atthe ca s e ane w and i ndepende nt l yexer ci s ed hi s s ent enci ng author i t y . See, e. g. , Z i m m erm an, 959 F. 2d at 1258 ( Second s ent ence rdi d noterrbyi m pos i ng cons ecut i ve, as oppos ed t o t he i ni t i al concurr ent , l i fe t erm s on defe ndant . T he s econd j udge “e xpl ai ned thatthe s ent ence di s par i tyw as at t r i but abl e t o t he fa ctthathe . . . w as t aki ng a fr es h l ook atthe r el evant fa cts an d ex erc isi n g an ind ep en d en t j u d g m en t. ”). 3. G ras so argues t hat “[d]ouble j eop ardyand du e process al so i nv al i date [hi s] in c re a se d se n ten c e f

o r th e . . . rea so n th a t [ h e ] . . . h a d a leg iti m a te e x p e c tatio n o f f in a lity w ith resp ec t t o it . ” A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 19 . G rasso cit es to a d ec isi o n o f th is co u rtw h ere w e sta ted , “A d e f

e n d a n t’s d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts m a yb e v io late d ‘w h e n a se n ten c e is enhanc ed af

t ert he def

endanthas s erved s o m uch of hi s s ent ence thathi s expec t at i ons as t o i t s fi nal i t yhave c r y s t al l i zed a nd i tw oul d be funda m ent al l yunfai rt o defe atthem. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. D avi s , 112 F. 3d 118, 123 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. L undi en, 769 F. 2d 981, 987 ( 4t h C i r . 1985) ) . G r as s o fai l s t o quot e the r emai nderof that10

thoughtw her e w e cont i nued, “I ti s onl yi n an extr eme cas e thata l at erupw ar d r evi s i on of a sent ence is so un fai r that i ti s i nco nsi st ent w i t h the fun dam ental no t i on s of fairness found i n the due pr oces s cl aus e. ” I d. I n D avi s , w e l ooked t o t hr ee f act or s t o det erm i ne w hetherthe def

endantl acke d a l egi t i m at e expe ct at i on of fi nal i t y . T he fi r s tw as w hether the def endanthi m s el f cha l l enged the s ent ence . I d. at123- 24. H er e, G r as s o m ade the deci s i on t o appea l t he s ent ence . T he s econd f act orw as w hetherthe def endanthas c o m p lete d h is p riso n ter m . Id . at 1 2 4 (“ D a v is h a [ d ] n o e x p e c tatio n o f f in a litya s h is aggr egat e s ent ence [had] notbeen s erved[. ] ”) . H er e, G r as s o had notcompl et ed hi s pr i s on t erm ; he had s erved 44 mont hs att he t i m e of hi s r es ent enci ng befor e J udge D al zel l . T he th ir d w a s w h e th e r t h e re s e n te n c in g g iv e s th e d e f e n d a n t a lo w e r o v e ra ll s e n te n c e . Id . H er e, al though G r as s o’ s over al l s ent ence has i ncr eas ed byfi ve mont hs , w e do notbel i eve an incr ease i n p ri son ti m e of thatm agn i tud e con st i tutes the type o f sent ence thati s “so unfai rthati ti s i ncons i s t entw i t h t he funda m ent al not i ons of fa i r nes s found i n t he due pr oces s cl aus e. ” I d. at123. W e r ej ectG r as s o’ s cons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o hi s r es ent ence . B. W e tur n t o t he s econd i s s ue G r as s o r ai s es on appea l , w hetherthe s ent ence w as r eas onabl e. G r as s o ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byr efus i ng t o t ake i nt o acc ount the di s par i t yi n G r as s o’ s s ent ence and the s ent ence s of tw o otherdefe ndant s convi ct ed a n d p re v io u slyse n ten c e d f o r sim ilar c o n d u c t. D e f e n se c o u n se l u rg e d th e D istric t C o u rt to i m pos e a s ent ence compar abl e t o t hati m pos ed on the othertw o defe ndant s . T he D i s tr i ct11

C ou rtdecli ned , st at i ng “[i ]tseem s t o m e w e’r e com pari ng app l es t o o ranges w i t h those othercas es . . . beca us e thos e fol ks w er e notconvi ct ed of moneyl aunder i ng. . . . B ut th a t’ s w h a t [ G ra s s o w a s ] [ s ic ].” T h e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in U n ited S tate s v . B o o k e r, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), is b yn o w w e ll-w o rn ter rito ry . F o r p u rp o se s o f th is o p in io n , itis s u f

f icie n t to n o te th a t in B ookerthe C our thel d t hatt he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w er e henc efort h t o be tr eat ed as advi s ory , r athert han mandat or y ; t o do ot herw i s e w oul d vi ol at e the cons t i tut i onal g u a r a n t e e e mb e d d e d i n t h e S i x t h Ame n d me n t . I d . As we s t a t e d i n Co o p e r , “ t h e S u p r e me C our tdi r ect ed appe l l at e court s t o r evi ew s ent ence s forr eas onabl enes s . . . . ” 437 F. 3d at 3 2 6 (cit ing B o o k er, 54 3 U . S . at 30 8 ). In d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a se n ten c in g c o u rt a c ted re a so n a b lyw e m u st lo o k to w h e th e r t h e c o u rt c o n s id e re d th e f a c to rs s e t f

o rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). I d . a t 3 2 9 . A s ent ence w i t hi n t he corr ectgui del i ne r ange i s l es s l i kel yt o be found unr eas onabl e; how ever , “a w i t hi n- gui del i nes s ent ence i s notnece s s ar i l yr eas onabl e pers e. O t herw i s e, as s ever al C our t s of A ppeal s have c oncl uded, w e w oul d come cl os e t o r es t or i ng the m andat or ynatur e of the gui del i nes exci s ed i n B ooker . ” I d. at331. L as t l y , the appe l l ant has “the bur den of de m ons t r at i ng unr eas onabl enes s . ” I d. at332. O n a p p e a l, G ra s s o h a s f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s u n re a s o n a b le . T he record dem on strat es that the D i stri ctC ou rtcon si dered t he § 35 53 (a) fact ors,18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 6) s t at es , “The cour t , i n det erm i ni ng 4 th e p a rticu lar se n ten c e im p o se d , sh a ll co n sid e r . . . th e n e e d to a v o id u n w a rra n ted se n ten c e d isp a rities a m o n g d e f e n d a n ts w ith sim il ar rec o rds w h o h av e b ee n fo u n d g u il tyo f sim il ar c o n d u ct[.]” T he A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orneypr es entatthe 5 s ent enci ng hear i ng onl yaddr es s ed one of the otherm at t er s r ai s ed b y d e f e n se c o u n se l. S h e sta ted , “ I w a s in v o lv e d in . . . the F ru m in cas e . . . . T he otherm at t erI w as noti nvol ved i n. ” A pp. at551. 12 s peci fi cal l y§ 3553( a) ( 6) , t he fa ct orati s s ue her e, and neve r t hel es s deci ded t o s ent ence 4 G r as s o w i thi n t he advi s or ys ent enci ng gui del i nes r ange. Fi r s t , as the G overnm ents t at ed atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng:

[ T ]h e a m o u n t o f

lo ss w ith re sp e c t to [ o n e o f th e in d iv id u a ls m e n tio n e d b yd e f

e n se c o u n se l] w a s a b o u t o n e -a n d -a -h a lf to t w o- and- a- hal f m i l l i on dol l ar s . . . . [W i t h r es pectt o] G r as s o, w e h a v e tak e n th e p o sitio n th a t w e ’re talk in g a b o u t es se n tially a 10 mi l l i on dol l arl os s . T hat ’ s the amountof m oneyhe s ecur ed fr om ot her s t hr ough t he cour s e of thi s fr audul ent s c h e m e .” 5 A pp. at552- 53. Second, G r as s o chos e t o go t o t r i al , r atherthan pl ead gui l t y . T hi r d, and perhaps m os ti m por t ant l y , G r as s o w as convi ct ed underthe moneyl aunder i ng gui del i nes – the othert w o i ndi vi dual s w er e not . T hatal one ac count s forthe s ent enci ng di s par i t y . T he fa ct th at th e D istri ct C o u rtfa il ed to d ep art do es n o t m ak e the sen tenc e u n rea so n ab le. In fac t , as w e s t at ed i n C ooper , B ookerdi d notover turn t hi s ci r cui t ’ s pr act i ce of “dec l i ni ng t o r e v i e w . . . a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o d e n yd e p a r tu r e . ” 4 3 7 F . 3 d a t3 3 3 . I n s u m, G r as s o’ s s ent ence w as notunr eas onabl e.13 C. G r as s o nextar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l yenhanc ed hi s m oney l aunder i ng s ent ence forobs t ruct i on of j us t i ce. See U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1. H e cont ends that a p p ly in g th e e n h a n c e m e n t f o r o b stru c tio n o f

ju stic e in N o . 0 0 -5 1 a m o u n ts to d o u b le co u n ti n g b ec au se h e w as c o n v ict ed fo r ob stru cti o n o f ju sti ce in N o . 0 1 -78 3 . H o w ev er, the r ecor d m akes cl eart hatno doubl e count i ng occurr ed. T he obs truct i ve conduc tfor w h ich G ra ss o ’s s e n ten c e w a s e n h a n c e d in N o . 0 0 -5 1 w a s re late d to G ra ss o ’s a ttem p t to acc es s fr ozen f

unds i n J anuary2000. G r as s o w r ot e a l et t eron J anuary21, 2000 t o a f in a n c ial in stitu tio n h o ld in g h is f ro z e n f u n d s a n d c laim e d th a t th e c o u rt o rd e r a p p lied to hi s father , r athert han t o hi m . I n t hatl ett er , G r as s o s t at ed: “Som et i m e bac k, m yfather b e c a m e in v o lv e d in a g o v e rn m e n tal litiga tio n p ro b lem . T h e g o v e rn m e n t ‘f ro z e ’ a ll h is as s et s . . . . ” PSR ¶ 83. I n contr as t , the obs t ruct i ve conduc tforw hi ch G r as s o w as c o n v icte d in N o . 0 1 -7 8 3 w a s re late d to G ra ss o ’s a ttem p t to se c u re f ro z e n f u n d s in O ct ober2001. T hatconductcons i s t ed of s endi ng fr audul entcour tor der s and mi s l eadi ng c o rre sp o n d e n c e to f

in a n c ial in stitu tio n s. T h e re f o re , itis c lea r th a t G ra ss o e n g a g e d in o b stru c tiv e c o n d u c t in tw o se p a ra te in sta n c e s. A s s u c h , the e n h a n c e m e n t w a s p ro p e rly appl i ed and doe s notamount t o doubl e count i ng. D. F i nall y , G ras so argues t hat unde r 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 6(a) (1) (A )( i ) the term “proceed s” s houl d be def

i ned as netpr ofi t s r atherthan gr os s r ece i pt s . I n s upportof thi s ar gum enthe14

re lies o n th e S e v e n th C irc u it’s d e c isio n in U n ited S tate s v . S c iala b b a , 2 8 2 F .3 d 4 7 5 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e h e ld o th e rw is e in G ra s s o ’s f ir s t a p p e a l. S e e G ra s s o , 3 8 1 F .3 d a t 1 6 9 . G r as s o conce des t hatpoi ntand onl ys eeks t o pr es erve the i s s ue forpos s i bl e r evi ew i n the Supr eme C our t . W e w i l l not , of cour s e, r el i t i gat e the i s s ue. III . F o r th e re a so n s s tate d h e re in th e ju d g m e n ts o f c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e e n ter e d in N os . 00- 51 and 01- 783 w i l l be af fi r m ed.