## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 1891 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. E DWARD R. V RDOLY AK, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C R 298

—Mi lt on I . Sh adur , Judge .
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 10, 2009

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 29, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, M A NI ON, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, C ircui tJudg e . Edw ar d Vrdol yakpl eaded gu il ty t o c o ns pi r ac y t o c o m m i t m ai l a nd wi r e f r au d a nd agr eed i n the ple a a greem ent that the l oss i ntended by h i s f r a u d w a s b e t w e e n $ 1 mi l l i o n a n d $ 2
. 5 mi l l i o n . He was s en te nc ed to fi ve years ofpr o ba ti o n, wi tha com m uni ty
- se r vi ce o bl i g at i o n b utno c o nfi ne m en t, a nd to pay a $5 0, 00 0 fi ne ( a m o des t amoun t, be ca us e the defe nd ant has a high inco m e, and a ne t worth i n exces s2 N o. 09

- 1891 of $ 1 m illion if h is lar ge loan s t o m em b er s o fh i s fa m ily ar e incl ud ed). The go ver nm ent a pp eal s, co ntending that the j ud ge m i scal cul ate d the s entenci ng- gui del i nes r ange appli cabl e t o the defendant’s cr im e and co m m i tte d other er ro rs . A l though a j ud ge i s no l onge r re quir ed to g ive a gui del i nes s entence , he i s r equi re d to m ake a cor re ct det er m i na ti o n o fthe g ui del i ne s sen te nc i ngr an g e as the f i rs t s te p in d ec id in g w h at se n te n c e t o im p os e. Ga l l v. U nited Sta tes , 552 U .S
. 3 8 , 50 (2 00 7); U ni t e d S t at e s v. G ibb s , 578 F.3d 694 , 695 (7th C ir. 2009). The Chi cag o M edi ca l S ch o o l ( as i t was the n kno wn) want ed to s el l a property i n Chi ca g o tha t i t o wned c o nsi sti ng o fa l ot w ith a bui l ding on i t. S tuar t Levi ne was a tr us te e o fthe medi ca l s ch o o l a nd the c ha i r m ano fthe bo ar d’ s r ea l e st at e co m m i tt ee , and h e ag r ee d wi ththe defen dan t to us e hi s po si ti o n a s a tr us tee to st ee r the sale o fthe pr o per tyt o a b uy ero fthe de fen dan t’ s choi ce. The defendant line d up S m i thfi el d Proper ti es to be the f avo re d buyeri n exchange f ora $1. 5 m i l l i on fee that Sm i thfi el d agr eed t o p ay h i m , and he i n turn agr eed to gi ve Levi ne hal fthe fee. The m edi calscho olwas not to l d abo utthi s co r r upta r r an g ement
. Le vine l i k e th e defend an t ha s pl ea ded g ui l tyt o hi s par t i n the fr au d and has ag re ed not to conte st a priso n sent ence ofup to 67 m onths that the s entenci ng j ud ge m i ght i m pose. S m i th fi el d’ s i ni ti alo fferf o r the b ui l di ng

— $9 .5 m ill i on

— w as low er than tw o other p oten tial bu yers

— th e Far l ey Group and L oy ola U ni ver si ty

— w er e wil l i ng to pay . The de fen dan t adv i se d Sm i th fi el d to up i ts o ffer, a nd it did, to $15 m illion. Farley and Loy ola r em ained i nt er-N o. 09

- 1891 3

es te d i n b uy i ngthe pr o perty. T o he ad th em o ff, Le vine ar ra nged f oran “ em er gency ” m eet i ng o fthe m edi cal s c ho o l ’ s b o a r d o ft r us t e e s to co ns i de r o ffe r s f o r the p r o per ty. A t the m eet i ng, al though Far l ey had offer ed $1 5 m i l l i on a nd Loyo l a $ 15. 5 m i l l i on f orthe proper ty, th e bo ar d, per su ade d by Le vine , deci ded t o acc eptS m i th

field’ s o fferand nego ti ate no furtherwith F ar l ey or Loyol a. T he bo ar d disco unted Loyol a’ s bi d because L oyola had not act ua ll y i ns p ecte d the p rop erty b e fore bi ddi ng

— Levi n e had seen to that. The bo ar d rej ecte d Far l ey’ s bi d because L evi ne st ro ngl y ur ged approv alo f Sm i th fi e l d’ s b i d, n o t i ngtha tF a r l e y ’ s wa s l o we r b e c a use i t incl ud ed a 4 per cent bro ker age fee th at w oul d be dedu cted fro m the am ou nt pai d to the s chool

. Thi s was m i sl eadi ng, bec ause Sm i thfi el d’s bi d w as contingent on o b t a i ningz o ning ap pr o v a l s a nd F a r l e y ’ s wa s n o t
. And a w eekl ate r Far l ey up p ed its bi d to $16 m i l l i on, wh i ch i n p u re d oll arte rm s was hi gherthan Sm i thfi el d’s eve n af ter de du c t i o n o fthe b r o k e r a g e fe e . F a r l e y wa s t o l d t hat i t was to o l ate
. T h e g ov er n m en t w as p r e p ar ed to offe r an affid av it f ro m Loyo l a’ s br oke r that L oy olawould have i ncre ase d i t s o ffe r h a d i tb e e n g i v e n a n o pp o r t un i ty to do s o . And a re prese ntati ve f ro m Far l ey w as prepar ed to tes ti fy that if necess ar y F ar l ey w oul d have incre ase d i ts offer to so m ewher e be twe en$ 18 a nd $ 20 mil l i o n. By c onven i ngthe emer g en cymeet i ngLe vine ha d m ade sur e th atS m i th

fi el d’ s bi d woul d b e ac ce pte d a nd tha t he a nd the de fen dant wo ul d s pl i tthe fi nd e r ’ s fe e . Al tho ugh we u s e “ b i d” an d “b id d er ” a s s yn on ym s fo r “o ffer ” a n d “ offe ro r,”4 N o. 09

- 1891 no form al auct ion w as e v e r cont em p lated and so there w as no r eas on t o consi der F ar l ey’ s hi gherbi d untim el y. The di strict j udg e co nc l ude d tha t th e defen dan t’ s f r au d ha d i nfl i ct ed ne i th era ctua l no r i nten d ed l o ss o n the m edi ca l s ch o o l

. H is fi ndi ngtha t i t ha d i nfl i ct ed no actuall oss was base d o n the f act that Sm i thfi el d’s bi d w as the hi ghesto ne co nsi dered atthe “em erge n cy” m eet i ng. The j ud ge gave no w ei ght t o Far l ey’ s w ee k-lat ero ffero f $16 m i l l i on a nd r efused to co nsi der the ev i dence that Fa rle y w ou ld h av e b id $1 8 m illion to $2 0 m illion if gi ven the chance and that Loy ol a was also prepar ed to offerm or e than $15

. 5 m i l l i on. T h ese r ulings were er ro neou s. N o em ergen cy req uired the m e d ical sch ool’ s board oft rustees to actwith has te to aw ar d the s al e co ntra ct. The “em er gency ” was a ruse to pre clude com peti ti on wi th S mi thfi e l d. The ju d ge ’ s r efusalto co nsi der the ev i dence ofwh at Loyol a o r Farleywould have done i fgi ven the chance to swe et enthe i r b i ds was bas ed o n hi s be l i eftha t unc o m m uni cate d i ntenti ons ar e unw or th y o fco nsi derat i on bya fi nd ero ff act. That i s no t c orre ct. N o rul e o fev i dence or p rin c ip le of c om m on s en se m ak es a p er so n ’s t es tim o ny a bo uthi s o wn i nt en ti o ns

— te st im on y u n iq u ely base d on hi s per so nal kno w l edge

— i na dm i ss ibl e i n a sente nci ng pro ceedi ng anym or e than i n an y otherpro c ee d in g in w h ich int en tio n is m at er ial. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Young, 24 7 F
. 3d 1247, 1252–5 3 (D. C. Cir
. 2001)
. W ho be tte r th an a pote nt ialbu yer k n o w s w ha t he w ou ld bid f or a proper ty? The j udg e hi m se l fs pec ul at ed atth e s en te nc i nghe ar i ng ab o u t t h e d efe n d an t’s u n c om m u n ica te d int en tio n s inN o. 09

- 1891 5 conspi ri ng with Levi ne t o defr aud the m edi calscho ol

— th athe ha d a ct ed o uto ffr i en dsh i p f o r Le vine . A defen dan t’ s te st i m o ny abo ut hi s unc o m m uni ca te d i nt en ti o ns i s no m or e credibl e than the tes ti m ony ofan ho nest thi rd party about his unc o m m uni cat ed i nt en ti o ns . To be l i ev e th e f o r m era nd r efus e ev ent o l i st ent o the latter i s error. The w ei ght t o be g i ven a pi ece ofev i d en ce i s o ne thi ng, and i s o rdi nari l y withi n the disc re ti on o fthe tr i ero ff act to deter m i ne. A dm i ssibi l i ty i s a notherm att er . A j u d ge i s no t perm i tte d to have hi s ow n rul es ofadm i ssibi l i ty

— to sa y f o r e xa m pl e th at“ [ i ] n my c o ur t no e xc ept i o ns to the hear sayr ule wil l be re cogni zed. ” As w e s hal l be em phasi zi ngthr o ugho utthi s o pi ni o n, o urc o nc e r n i s n o twi th th e l en i en cy ofthe de fen dan t’ s se nt en ce a s su chb ut w i th pro cedural er ro rs co m m i tte d by the j ud ge en r oute to the det er m i nati on o fthe sente nce. The j udg e’ s r efus alt o l i st ento the e vi den ce o fthe p o te nt i alb uy er s was a n e g r eg i o us e r r o r b ec au se the evid en ce w as corrobor a t e d . T h e m e d ical sch ool’ s proper ty had recentl y b een a pp ra i sed f or$1 5 m i l l i on o n th e assu m p tion th at its b e s t u se w as as a lux ury reside nt ialde velop m en t, a us e tha t w ou ld req uire te ar i ngdo wn th e bu i l di ngo n the pr o per ty
. I fthe bu il d ing w as not torn dow n ( an ex p en s iv e un d ertaking), the l and alon e, acco rdi ng to the apprai sal, was w or th $1 6. 5 m i l l i o n. Lo y o l a di d n’t w ant to t ea rthe b ui l di ng dow n ; i t wanted to use i t f orstud ent ho usi ng. I t had e v e r y r e a s o n the r e f o r e t o o f f e r mo r e tha n S mi thfi e l d. F ar l ey ha d no i nt en ti o n o f demol i sh i ng th e bu i l di ng6 N o. 09

- 1891 either, and i ts inten tion to top Sm ithfiel d ’s bi d w as corr o bo r at ed bythe $ 16 mil l i o n o ffertha t i t m ade forthe proper ty. The j udg e was i m pr es se d b y the f ac t th atthe de fen dan t had tol d Sm i thfi eld t h at $9. 5 m i l l i on was to o l ow an offer. By doi ng so , the j ud ge re aso ned, he ha d confer re d a ben efi t on t h e s c hool. B ut that w as no t the de fend an t’s i nt en ti o n. Hi s i nt en ti on w as t o make s ur e th atS m i th

f i el d wa s the wi nn i ng b i dde r, s i nc e the fi nd e r ’ s fe e was contingent on Sm i thfi el d’s get ti ng the pro perty
. W hether i n an hones t bi dd i n g pr oce ss the s choolwould have obt ai ned m or e th an $ 15 m i l l i on fro m Fa rl ey orLoyo l a o r p erha p s from som e othe r pote nt ial b u y e r can ’t be det erm i ned w i th ce rt ai nty b ecause Levi n e preve nted Far l ey and Loyol a fr om ke epi ng the bi dd i ng g oi ng and prev ented eve ry one el se w h o had express ed i nter estfro m ev en m aki ng o ffer s. T h e jud ge th ou gh t t h e d efe n d an t’s int e r es ts p er fec tly ali gn ed w ith th e s c hool’s

— th o ug httha t th e m o r e S m i th

fi el d b i d, the mor e the sch o o l woul d r ec ei ve , a s wel l a s th e defendant

. Tha t i s no t tr ue . The de fen dan t di d want S m i th fi el d t o b e th e hi g h b i dder, b uthe a l so want ed th e b id d in g p ro c es s t o b e rig ge d , to m ak e s u re Sm i th field was the hi gh b i dder so th athe woul d g ethi s fee . The re sul t o fthe ri gging was to pre vent th e m edi calscho ol fro m co n sid er in g h igh er bid s fro m Fa r l ey an d L oy ola and perhaps o ther s. I n de te r m i ni ngpe cu niar y l o ss f o r pur po se s o fc al cul ati ng a sente nci ng- gui del i nes r ange, the j ud ge i s r equi re d to d et er m in e t h e l os s t h at th e d efe n d an t “ re as on ab lyN o. 09

- 1891 7 sh ou ld h ave kn ow n, w as a p oten tial resu lt ofthe offen se. ” U.S
. S. G. § 2 B1. 1, A pp l i cati on N ote 3( A ) ( i v)
. That potenti all oss i n thi s ca se w as the a m ount above $15 m i l l i on that a notherbi dd erm i ght ha ve d eci ded to payf o r the pr o per tyha d the b i ddi ngb ee n f ai r and o pen . As an expe r i en ce d l awy era nd b us i ne ss m an, the defen dan t m us t ha ve kno wn th ata f ai r a nd open bi ddi ng p ro c es s m igh t w ell yie ld a h igh er p ric e t h an Sm ith fi e ld offer ed. I n f act h e knew thatbo th Loyo l a a nd Fa rl ey w anted to pay m or e than Sm i thfi el d, w hi c h m ade se nse be ca us e, a s we s ai d, b o thb i dder s want ed to us e th e bui l di ngo n the pr o per tyr athe r tha n t ea r i t do wn. The j ud ge’ s fi nd in g that the defendant had caused no l oss bl ock ed the al ter n ativ e m eas ure ofl oss i n case s i n wh i c h th e r e i s a l o s s b u t th e p r e c i s e a mo unt o ft he loss c an not be d eterm ined : i n su ch a case th e crim inal’s gai n i s tr eat ed as the m eas ure of l oss . U
. S. S. G. § 2 B 1. 1, A p p lica t i on N ot e 3 (B ); U nite d State s v. Serpico , 32 0 F
. 3d 69 1, 69 8 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bhut ani, 2 6 6 F
. 3d 66 1, 66 8 (7 th C ir. 20 01 ); U nite d State s v. C hatte rj i, 46 F. 3d 13 36 , 1 3 4 0 (4 th C ir. 19 95 ). Th at m ak es goo d se n se in th is c ase . S m i thfi el d w as w i l l i ng to pay $1. 5 m i l l i on t o the d efendant to o btain the proper ty, and i t m ust hav e thought that i fi t di dn ’ t pa y that am ount i t would have to up i t s b i d b y a t l e a s t tha t muc h t o wi n a n unri gge d bi dd i ng co ntest
. Onlyo n that ass um pti on di d the k i ckba ckmake s en se fr o m S m i th fi el d’ s s tan dpo i nt
. F r o m the defen dan t’ s s tandpoint, the mor e S m i th fi el d pa i d, the bett er ; but f ro m S m i thfi el d’s sta n d p oint, the goa l o f p ay in g a find er ’s fe e w a s t o e n ab le Sm ith field to ob ta in8 N o. 09

- 1891 the pr oper ty f ora sm a llertotal outlay (price plus find er’s fee) than i t would have had to pay othe rwis e. There w as at the v er y l eas t a probableloss , an d th at is “lo ss ” w ith in th e m ea n in g of t h e g u id elin e. U ni t e d St at e s v. Johns on , 16 F .3d 16 6, 17 0 (7 th C ir. 19 94 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sc hn eider, 930 F.2d 55 5, 55 8 (7 th C ir. 19 91 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sta nley, 12 F. 3d 1 7, 21 (2 d C i r. 19 93)
. I t i s t rue that case s i nv o l vingpr o babl e l o ss us ua l l y a re on es i n whi chthe i l l ega l sche m e i s interrupted, so thati ts conse quences can no tb e de t e r mi ne d wi th c e r t a i nty . He r e i twa s not interru p ted

. Bu t the cons eq ue nc es stil l can n o t b e d eterm i ned w i th cer tai nty, and i t w oul d b e eve n m or e an om al ous t o gi ve the defendant a s entenci ng b re ak w hen th er e i s no int er rupt i o n b y s o m e o ut si de f o r ce b ut i nstea d the ve rynatur e o fthe schem e pr ec lu d es a cer tai n deter m i nati on o fl oss . The ga in (and thus al ter nati ve m eas ure ofthe l oss ) was the $ 1. 5 m i l l i on fi nd er ’ s fee. I t is tr ue thatwh en or igi n a l l y n eg ot iat ed , th e fe e w as co n tin ge n t o n ce rt ain f acto rs. B u t by the ti m e o fthe defe nd ant’ s s entenci ng, th e co nt i ng en ci es ha d b ee n di spe l l ed an d the de fen dan t w oul d have be en enti tl ed, had the schem e no t be en detect ed, to the full$1

. 5 m i l l i on. That the fee w as to be spl i t wi th a c o c o ns pi r a t o r i s o fn o s i g ni fi c a nc e . U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B 1 .3(a ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thom as , 19 9 F
. 3d 950, 95 2- 54 (7t h C ir. 19 99 ); U nited Sta tes v. B o a tner, 99 F. 3d 831, 83 4- 37 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6)
. Di vi di ngthe g ai n by th e numbero fc o nspi ra tor s would m ean that the l ar gerthe conspi ra cy, th e m i l derthe puni sh m en t o fe ac h o ne . A ny way the d e fe n d a n ts t o o d t o g a i n $ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 fr o m h i s c r i me

— not a n eg ligib le h au l.N o. 09

- 1891 9 Th e z e r o l o s s f o un d b y the d i str i c tj ud g e c r e a t e d a gu id elin es se n te n c in g ra n ge of ze ro to six m on th s in pri son; the c orre ct l oss fi gure o f$1

. 5 m i l l i on ( w hi ch i nc i den ta l l y was wi th i n the r an g e th atthe de fe nda nt agr eed i n the ple a agr eem ent w as the i ntended l oss at tr ibutabl e t o hi s cr i m e) u p s the se ntenci ng r ange to 33 to 41 m onths. Ordinar i l y we w oul d sto p here and rem an d fo r re sente nci ng. But the j ud ge w ent on to r ule thati fhe was w ro n g a n d th e re w as a los s o f $5 00 ,00 0, w h ich w ou ld cr ea te a g ui del i ne s r an g e o f2 7 to 3 3 m o nths i n pris o n, he woul d g i ve the defen dan t a be l o w-gui del i ne s se ntenc e of no pri son

— i n f act the i denti calse ntence that he i m posed on the a ssum pti on o fze ro l oss . Bu t $ 500, 000 w as al so er ro r. A nd wh ile a j ud ge can gi ve a be l ow-gui del i nes s entence , the sente n c e cannot st an d i f i t i s ba se d o n a l eg al, f ac tu al, o r an alytic ( co nne ct i ngl aw a nd f ac t) e r r o r tha t i s not h arm l es s. The cou rt ofap p eals m us t “en su re that the d istri ct cou rt com m i tte d no si gni fi cant proced uraler ro r, such a s f ai l i ng to cal cul ate ( ori m prop er ly cal cul ati ng) the Gu i del i ne s r an g e, t r ea ting th e Gui del i ne s as mandat o r y, f ai l i ng to consi der the § 3553 ( a) f acto rs , se l ecting a sente nce ba sed on cle ar ly er ro n eo u s f a c ts , or failin g t o a d eq u at ely expla i n the chose n sent ence

— i ncl ud i ng an expla nati on f orany dev iat ion fr om the Gu i del i nes r ange . ” Gal l v. U nited Sta tes , sup ra , 5 52 U
. S. at5 1. “ The a l l o wabl e ba nd of vari an ce [i n sen ten cing] i s greater a fte r B o o k erthan bef or e, but i ntel l ectualdi sci pli ne r em ai ns vi tal

. ” U nited S ta te s v. K irkpa tr ick, 5 8 9 F
. 3 d 4 1 4 , 4 1 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ; se e10 N o. 09

- 1891 al so U nite d State s v. P eña-Her m osil lo , 5 2 2 F
. 3 d 1 1 0 8 , 11 12 (10th Cir. 2008). The j ud ge com m i tte d thre e e rr or s in hi s a l ter nati ve r ul i ng . F i r st, the $ 50 0, 000 fi g ur e was e r r o ne o us f o r the re aso ns we’ve gi ven a l re ady. The c or rect fi gure was $1.5 m illion an d the gu idelines ran ge w as th erefore hi gherthan the j ud ge thought. S econ d , r epeating an er ro r i n hi s co m pu tat i on o fl oss , the j ud ge thought that the de fe nd a ntde s e r v e d l e ni e nc y b e c a us e h e h ad i nt en ded no ha r m t o the medi ca l sc hool, b uto n the c o ntr ar y h ad int en d ed a b en efit

— th at th e s c h oo l sh ou ld re cei ve the hi ghestbi d fr om S m i thfi el d. N oti ce the equi voca ti o n i m pl i ci t i n “ hi g he stb i d fr o m S m i th fi el d. ” The hi g h e s tb i d fr o m S mi th fi e l d i s th e b i d th a tg e t s S mi th

fi el d the proper ty; i t i s not the hi ghest bi d th e s ell er w oul d have o btained had the bi dd i ng pro cess notbee n conta m i nated bythe defe nd ant’ s k i ckba ck. The j ud ge’ s thi rd er ro r w as to gi ve, witho ut adequate articu lated cons iderat ion, en orm ou s w eight to letters u rg in g len ien c y for th e d efe n d an t, w h ile v irt u ally ignorin g the eviden ce th at tu gged the oth er w ay. T he re wer e 48 l et te r s i n a l l, s o m e f r o m m em bers o fthe de fen dant’s f am i l y a nd o ther s fro m per sons f orwh om he ha d done f avo rs o fa c h ar itabl e nature, i ncl ud i ng g i fts of m oney . The j ud ge com m i tte d thre e e rr or s e n ro ut e t o deci ding that th e letter s wei ghed m or e hea vi l y in f avo r ofl eni ency than the defendant ’s et h i calvi ol ati ons as a law ye r, p oin te d ou t b y t h e g ov er n m en t, w eig h ed in f avo r ofse ver i ty. One er ro r w as hi s f ai l ure to disc ussN o. 09

- 1891 11

an y of t h e eviden ce th at sh ow ed the d efend an t’s c h aracte r i n a b ad l i ght. A se ntenci ng j ud ge i s no t re q u ire d to m e n t i o n ev er y b it of e vid en c e p re se n te d in the s entenci ng hea ri ng, but an arbi tr ar i l y o ne -sid ed co m m en ta ry o n the e vi den ce r ai se s a war ni ngfl ag . The j udg e d id no t r emar kthe de fen dan t’ s di sc us singthe k i c kb a c ks c h e me wi th Le v i n e a n d t e l l i n gh i m, “ I ft wo fucki ng sch em er s l i ke yo u and I can’ t fi gure thi s o ut, th enwe g o t a pr o bl em. ” H e di d no t m en tion the c o nsp irators’ d ecision t o ev ad e tax es by th e d efend an t’s gi vi ng Levi ne’ s wife a “l oan” at a ve ryh i gh i nter est ra te w i th the understa nd i ng tha t that th er e w as no obl i g a t i o n t o r e p a y ; L e v i n e ’ s c u t wo u l d c o me f r o m th e l o an . H e di d no t m en ti o n Ridg eChrys l e rJe ep, LL C v. D ai m l e r Chrys le rFi nan ci al Se r vi ces Am e r i ca s LL C, 51 6 F.3 d 62 3 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ), w h er e o u r d efe n d an t a s s i s te d in a fra ud by l i ti gants wh o had, w e s ai d, “be h aved l i ke a pack o fweasel s. ” Id . at 6 27 . H e d id n otm en tio n t h e lie that the defe n d an t had to l d a di str i ct j ud ge i n 200 2 when he was c l as s co uns eli n a s ucc es sfulc as e an d the j udg e ha d a sk ed him whethe r he woul d b e co l l ec ting any fees o therthan th os e se t a si de i n a s peci al l aw yer ’ s fund and he re pli ed he w oul d n ot

— despit e col l ecting $1 50, 000 f ro m the nam ed pla i n tiffs und er hi s co nt i ng en cy - fee a g r ee m en t wi ththe m . The de fen d an t had a hi sto ryo f e th ica l m i sco nd uct t o w hi ch the j ud ge w i th out expla nati on g ave negl i gibl e wei ght. Offi ci al j ud gm ents ofm i sco nd uct were disc ounted i n f avo r of l ett er s pro cured bythe defe nd ant. Se cond, the j ud ge appears to have gi ven no weight to the f a c t tha t the de fe nd a nt i s b y no r mal s t a nd a r ds ( not12 N o. 09

- 1891 W ar re n B u ffet t o r B ill G a t e s st an d ar d s) w ea lth y; h is annual i ncom e in re cent yea rs has som eti m es exceeded $1 m i l l i o n. Wea l thyp e o pl e c o mm o nl y ma k e g i ft s to ch ar i ty
. The y a re to b e co m m en ded f o r do i ngs o b ut sh ou ld n otbe allow ed to tre at ch ar ity as a ge t-o u t
- o f

-ja il c ar d

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Repki ng, 46 7 F
. 3d 1091 , 10 95- 96 ( 7th C ir. 20 06 ) (p er c u r iam ); U nite d State s v. A li, 50 8 F
. 3d 136, 14 9 (3 d C ir. 20 07 ); U nited Sta tes v. C o o per, 39 4 F
. 3d 172, 17 6- 77( 3d Ci r . 2 00 5)
. As the c o ur t i n Rep ki ng put i t (qu oting C o o per ), “ch aritable w orks m u st be ex cep tional before th ey w ill s u p p o r t a m or e-le n ien t s en te n c e, for

. . . ’it is usual and or dinar y, i n the pros ecuti on o fsi m i l arwh i teco l l arc r i m es i nv o l vinghi gh- r an k i ngc o r po r ate e xe cuti ves . . . to fi nd thata defe nd ant w as i nvol ved as a l eader i n com m unity c hari ti es, ci vi c o rg ani zati ons, and church eff or ts. ’ ” 4 67 F. 3d at 109 5. Peopl e “ w ho donate l ar ge sum s be cause they can sho uld notga i n an advanta ge ove r thos e who do notm ake such d onati ons because they cannot. ” U nited Sta t e s v. Thurs t on , 35 8 F
. 3d 51, 80 ( 1stCi r. 20 04) , vac ate d on other gr ou nd s, 54 3 U.S
. 10 97 (20 05 ); cf. U nited Sta tes v. Stefo nek, 17 9 F
. 3d 1030 , 10 38 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 9)
. “ To a l l o w any affl ue nto ffen dert o po i nt to the g oo d his m on ey h as perf or m ed and to re cei ve a dow nw ar d dep ar ture fro m the cal cul ate d offense l eve l o n that basi s i s to m ake a m ock er y of the Gui del i nes. Such ac com m odati on s ugges ts that a s uccess ful cri m i nal defe nd ant need onl y w ri te out a few checks to ch ar i ti es and then i nd i gnantl y dem and that hi s se n te nce be r edu ced. The ve ryi dea ofsuch purchas es ofl ower s entence s i s unsav or y, and sugg est s that s oci etycan al w ays be b ought off, ev en by t h ose wh ose cr i m i nal m i sco nd uctN o. 09

- 1891 13 has s how n conte m pt f ori ts w el l

-bei ng. ” U nited Sta tes v. M cHan , 920 F.2d 244 , 248 (4th C ir. 1990). Thi r d, the j udg e i g no r ed th e fa cttha t th e defen dan t was f o r m an y y ea r s ani nfl ue nt i alChi ca g o a l der m an . Po l i ti ci an s ar e i n the b us i ne ss o fdi spe ns in gf av o r s; a nd w hi l e gra ti tude l i ke chari ty i s a vi rtue, expre ssi ons of gr at itu d e b y b en efic iar ies of p olit icia n s’ la rg es se sh ou ld not w ei gh i n sent enci ng. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wr ight, 36 3 F.3d 23 7, 24 8-4 9 (3d C ir. 20 04 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. Se r af i ni, 23 3 F .3d 75 8, 77 3 (3 d C ir. 2 00 0); c f. U nited Sta tes v. M o rken , 133 F.3d 628, 630 (8th Cir. 1998). W e ar e no t l ay i ng do wn r ul es o f se nt en ci ng . Th e sen te nc i ngdi sc r et i o n o ffede r alj udg es i s br o ad an d o ur c oncer n i s no t with the j ud ge’ s hav i ng ta ken a ccount of the defendant’s go od w or ks but with hi s f ai l ure to consi der the fullr ange ofev i dence pert in ent t o a j ust sente nce. That was an e rror, j ust l i ke the j ud ge’ s e rr one o us c al cul at i o n o fthe a ppl i cable gui del i ne s se nte n c in g ra n ge . A p p ella te re v i ew of er ro rs co m m itt ed in se n te n c in g is p len ar y. G a ll v. U nit e d S t a tes , sup ra , 552 U
. S. at 51 ; Uni t e d S t at e s v. Gibbs , sup ra , 5 7 8 F
. 3 d a t6 9 5 ( “ we review the p roced ure s fol low ed by the d is t r ict court de no vo ”)
. Re vi ew tur ns de fer en ti alwhenthe i ss ue i s th e substa nti ve re aso nabl eness r ath erthan the pr oce du ra l r e g ul a r i t y o fthe s e nt e nc i ngde t e r mi na t i o n. T he cas c a de ofer ro rs and om iss ion s that we have i denti fi ed cannot be di sm i sse d as har m l ess , and so r equ ire s that the defe nd a ntb e r e s e nt e nc e d. A nd i n f airn es s to the g ove rnm ent, wh i ch i s e nti tl ed to th e sa m e co ns i der at i o n a s o th erl i ti g an ts , th e r es en te nc i ng shoul d b e by a differ ent j ud ge. ( The gov er nm ent did not14 N o. 09

- 1891

as kus t o o r derthe c as e r emande d t o a di ffe r en t j ud ge; r epeat l i ti gants

— l i ti gants w ho expect to ap pear before the sam e j ud ge in the fut ure

— ar e f o r o bv i o us re as on s re lu c ta n t t o re q u es t s u c h relie f

. W e c om m on ly i s su e s u c h ord er s, as w e a re au th or ize d by ou r C irc u it Rul e 36 t o do , wi th o uta r eque stb y a l i ti g an t. ) One cann ot r ea d the 1 68

- pag e tr an sc r i pt o fthe s en te nc i ng he aring, an d the tw o m em oran d a attem p ting t o j us tify the s entence tha tthe j ud g e i s s ue d a fterhe ha d announced the s entence a t the co ncl usi on o fthe hear i ng, wi tho u ts e n s i n gth a tth e j u d g e h a d c o mmi t t e d h i mse l fi r r ev o cabl y t o a no nc us to di als en te nc e f o r the de fen dan t. He pr et tymuch a nno unc ed th i s atthe o ut se t o fthe he aring, a nd he r epe at edl y e xpr es se d hi s an g erwi ththe g o ve r n me n t ’ s l a wy e r s o v e r ma t t e r s th a td i d n o twa r r an t an g er, s ucha s th e g overn m en t’ s r efer en ce t o the fr au d as havi ng be en co nd uct ed by “i nsi ders” ( plur al

— Lev i ne and the defendant). The judge sa i d that Levine was i nde ed an ins iderb y v i r tu e o fb einga mem be r o fthe f r au d vi ct i m ’ s bo ar d o ft r us te es b uttha t th e defen dan t w as not, and he ex cor i ate d the g ove rnm ent’ s l aw yerf or ca l l i nghi m a n i ns i der

. Buta ll th e la wye r ha d m ea nt was t ha t t he de fen dan t i s a pr o m i ne nt“ i ns i der ” i n the Ch i cago , l ega l, busi ness, and pol i tical co m m unit i es. Fo r th e l a wy e r ha d mer e l y s a i d “ I wi l l us e the t e r m i nsi der f o r M r . Vr do l y ak, in the s en se o fs o m eo ne who i s co nne ct ed i n thi s Ci tyt o pe o pl e w ho ar e i n po wer . ” And the j udg e k ept he ct o r i ng th e g o ve r nm en t’ s l awyers ab o ut w hat he vi ew ed as thei r m i sund er sta nd i ng o fthe re al est ate busi ness; but w e c annot f athom wh at that m i sund er sta nd i ng was.N o. 09

- 1891 15 De s p i t e p a t i e n te x p l a n at i o n b y th e g o v e r n me n t ’ s l a wyer s, the j ud ge w oul d not waveri n hi s co nvi ctio n that th e defen dan t h ad a ct ed wi ththe b es t i nt er es ts o fthe m edi ca l sc ho o l in m i nd

— whi chi s unt r ue b ec au se the schoo l ’ s inter estwas to have an ho nest bi dd i ng pro c ess an d th e d efe n d an t k n ew it

— and that the defen d an t had act ed out offri endship f orLevi ne, wh o had financi al pr o bl ems. ( Tha t was the Ro bi n Hoo d de fen se . ) The de fen dan t co ul d ha ve a ss i st ed Lev i ne fi na nc ial l y wi th o ut d efraud ing a m ed ical sch ool. Given the d e fe n d an t’s prom i nence, hi s a ffl ue n c e, and hi s pro fess i onalst atus as a l aw yer, hi s crim e was es peci al l y g ra tui tous. W hen Levi ne as ked f oras si sta nce i n defr auding the m edi cal sc h oo l, th e d efe n d an t d id n o t h es ita te an d w as qu ick ly a b l e t o fi n d a c o mpa n y wi l l i n gt o p a y th e k i c kb a ck

. He did notco oper ate with the go ver nm ent in the i nvest i gati on o fthe cri m e a nd di d n ot p lead gui l ty unti l the eve of t ria l. The g r atui tyo fthe c r i m e su g g es ts tha t th er e ca n b e no as su r an ce tha t i fl eto ffwi tha s l ap o n the w r i st, the de fen dant w i l l notco m m i t a future cri m e. H e has l osthi s l aw lice n se , b u t t h e c rim e o f w h ich h e h as be en co n vic te d d id not re quir e a l aw lice nse. H e di d not be nefi t fro m th e c r i me

—but o nl y b ecause he was ca ught. The j ud ge’ s e rr or s in cal cul ati ng th e gu i del i nes r ange ar e i ndi ca ti ve o fa n i déef ixethatthe defe nd an t was notto r ec ei ve a c us to di als en te nc e, e ve n (as the g o ve r nm en t ur g ed in th e al te r na ti ve ) ho m e co nfi ne m en t. I n U nited St at e s v. P eña-Her m osil lo , sup ra , 522 F. 3d at 1117, the Tenth Cir cui t hel d that “ i m pos[ i ng] the sam e s entence under16 N o. 09

- 1891

an alt er n at ive rat ion ale ” h ad be en a “ p r oc ed u ra l err or ,” ex p lai ni n g that “it is hard f or us to im agine a cas e w he re it w ou ld be p roced ura ll y reason able for a d istri ct cou rt to an n ou n ce that the sa m e s entence would applyev en if co rre c t g u id elin es ca lcu lat ion s a re so su b st an t i a l ly differ en t, w i thout cog ent e xplanat i on. I n the abse nce o f exp lanat i o n, we m i g htb e i nc l i ne d t o s us pec t th atthe dist ri ct c ourtdi d not g enui nel y ‘ consi der’ the cor re ct gui del i nes c al cul ati on i n re achi ng the al ter nati ve r ati onal e. ” Id

. S ee a l so o urde ci si o n i n U ni t e d State s v. Ande rs on , 517 F.3d 953 , 965-66 (7th C ir. 2007 ), w he re w e e xpresse d concer n w i th “bl anket ” s entence s. The j ud gm ent i s r eve rs ed and th e c as e rem anded f or re sente nci ng be f or e a di fferen t j ud ge, pursuant to 7th Cir
. Rule 36. W e i nti m ate no vi ew on w h at a p ro per sente nce would be

. R EV ER S ED AN D R EMAND ED .

H A MI L T ON, Cir cu it Judg e, di s s e nt i ng . Ia g r ee tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t e r r ed i n the g ui del i ne l o ss c al cul at i o n, b ut I r e s pe c t ful l y di s s e ntb e c a us e tha te r r o r wa s h a r ml ess . The r ec o rd shows ane xpe r i en ce d di st r i ctj udg e co nsid er in g a d ifficu lt c as e t h or ou gh l y an d ex er c isin g h is disc re ti on r eas onabl y under 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) to c ra ft a sente n ce t o fi t bo th the cr i m e a nd the cri m i nal

. The er ro rN o. 09

- 1891 17 i n the gui del i ne cal culatio n did notaffect the fi nal deci si on, and Ifi nd no abuse ofdi scr eti on i n the final deci si on about the s entence
. A s the m aj ority exp lai ns , gi ven the n atu re of V rd olyak’s an d Le vine’s crim e, it i s m ore accu rate t o s a y tha t the re w as a l oss thatcannotbe det er m i ned re l i abl y than to say that ther e w as no l oss to the vi ctim of th e cri m e. W here the cri m e m ake s i t so diffi cul t to deter m in e w i th co nfi den ce the a m o unto fthe l o ss , the gui del ines an d case s fr o m thi s an d o th erc i r cui ts e st ab l i shtha t th e i nt e nd e d g a i n f o r the c o ns pi r a t o r s i s a u s e fuls ub sti tute f orl oss i n apply i ng the gui de l i nes t o gauge the seve ri ty of t h e c rim e. A p p lica tio n N ot e 3 (B ) to U .S.S.G . § 2B 1.1 p ro vid es: “The co urt shal l use the g ai n that re sul ted fro m th e o ffen s e a s a n alt er n at ive m ea su re of los s o n ly if th er e is a los s b u t itrea so n ab ly c an n otb e d et er m in ed .” T ha t appr o ac h h as b ee n us ed, f o r e xa m pl e, i n U ni t ed St at e s v. Br i s co e, 65 F. 3d 5 76 , 5 89- 90 & n. 16 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ( affi rm in g sente nce o funi on pre si dent w ho defra ud ed unio n thr ough k i ckba ck schem e with l ender to unio n m em ber s; l oss cal cul ati on ba sed o n de fen d an t’ s g ai n), as wel l a s i n U nited Sta tes v. Vin ya rd, 26 6 F
. 3d 320, 33 2 ( 4th Cir
. 20 01) ( affi rm i ng se ntence i n ki ckba ck schem e ba sed o n de fe nd a nt ’ s g a i n) , a nd U nited Sta tes v. Yeag er, 33 1 F. 3d 1216 , 12 24- 26 ( 11th Cir
. 20 03) ( affi rm i ng se n tence bas ed on d efe nd an t’s gain throu gh sch em e to divert d rug sa les throu gh u na ut horized d ealers at l ow er prices). Bu t the gui del i ne cal cul ati on i s o nl y the be gi nning of th e st o r y, f o r b o ththe di st r i ct co ur t an d th i s co ur t. Pur su ant t o U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 5 4 3 U
. S. 220, 259-60 (2005 ),18 N o. 09

- 1891 afte r c al cul at i ngthe appl i cabl e se nt en ci ngg ui del i ne ran ge, th e di st r i ctc o ur t was r equi r ed to l o o kb ey o nd the g ui de l i ne s a nd t o c o ns i de r the cas e u nd e r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a )
. Co ng r e s s h a s i ns t r uc t e d: The cou rt s h al l i m pose a s entence suffi ci ent, but not gr eat erthan necess ary, to co m plywith the purpose s se t f o r thi n pa r ag r aph( 2) o fthi s su bs ec ti o n. Para gr aph ( 2) o fsub sect i on ( a) r equi re s the co urt to con side r: the ne ed f orthe sente nce i m posed

— ( A ) to re fl ect the s er i ousness o f the offense, to pro m ote r es pec t f o r the l aw, a nd t o provide j us t puni sh

m ent forthe offense; ( B) to aff or d a dequ ate deter re nce t o cri m i nal co nd uct; ( C) to pr o te ctthe pub l i c f r o m fur th erc rim es ofthe defen dan t; a nd ( D) to provi de the defe nd ant with needed educati onal or vocati onaltr ai ni ng, m edi calcar e, o r othe r co r r ectio na l t r ea tmenti n the mos t effec ti ve mann er . . . . 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a)
. The di str i ct c ourt w as re quir ed to consi der the g uidel i nes, but i t was pro hibi ted fro m pre su m in g t h at a gu id elin e se n te n c e w ou ld be a re as on ab le se n te n c e. R ita v. U nited Sta tes , 551 U
. S. 338, 351 (2007 ). A t t h e e n d of th e le n gt h y s en te n c in g h e a rin g in th is case , the d istri ct j ud ge ad d ressed the factors an d pu rpo se s unde r sectio n 3 55 3( a)
. He e xpl aine d ho w and why he had concl ud ed that a s entence o ffi ve yea rs ’ pro bati onN o. 09

- 1891 19 (w hich w as abov e the gu id eli ne range h e calcu lated ), plu s 2 5 0 0 ho ur s o f c o mm un i t y s e r v i c e a nd a fi ne , was suffi ci ent b ut notgr eat erthan necess ar y t o ser ve thos e pur po se s. The de fen dan t co m m i tt ed a se r i o us c r i m e, b ut t h ere w ere a nu m ber of f acto rs tha t the district cou rt c ou ld an d d id co n sid er i n m itig at ion . Th e d efe n d an t is 71 ye ar s o l d, had no pri orcr i m i nal r eco rd, and posed l i ttl e ri sk of re peat offenses . H e had g i ven up hi s la w l i c e ns e . T he c r i me o ffr a ud di d n o ti nv o l v e v i o l ence, an d the r e was no e l emento fpub l i c co r r up ti o n. The defen dan t ha d ag r ee d to he l p a f r i en d by comm i tt i ng th e c r i me , b u th e w a s n o tth e i n s t i g a t o r o fth e c r i me an d did not act u a lly ben efi t from i t. T he district cou rt w as als o i m press ed by a s urpri si ng vo l um e o fi nfo rm ation sh ow ing the de fend an t’s cha racter w as very d if

fer ent from h i s publ i c i m age i n the m edi a. That info rm ati on s how ed gene ro si ty w i th ti m e, m one y, and i nfl uence to hel p pe o pl e i n n ee d, e spe ci al l y wher e th e defen dan t ha d no m or alo r o th ero bl i g at i o n t o he l p the m a nd w h er e h e re c eiv ed n o p u b licit y or re c o g n itio n for h is k i ndne ss es . Tha t i s no t the e nt i r e pi ctur e, o fc o ur se , b ut thos e a re al l f ac tor s that c oul d rea sonab l y l ead the distr i ct c ourtto exer ci se i ts disc re ti on u nd erse cti on 3 553( a) to i m pose the s entence th at it d i d. Se e G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 5 5 2 U. S
. 3 8 , 4 8

- 4 9 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ( a ffi r mi n gb e l o wgui del i ne se ntence ofpro bation and re cogni zi ng subst an ti alr est ri cti ons on l iber ty i m posed by sente nce of probat ion). U nd er Booke r a nd G a ll the di str i ct c ourti s r equi re d to ca l cul at e th e appl i cabl e se nt en ci ngg ui del ines f o r the c rim e a n d th e c rim in al, an d an err o r in th e c alc u lat ion is20 N o. 09

- 1891 a pro ceduraler ro r i n sent encin g that m ay re quir e a r em an d

. Book er, 543 U .S. at 2 59 -60 ; G all , 55 2 U.S
. at49

- 51. A t t h e s am e t im e, h ow ev e r , it is cle ar th at err or s in ca lcul ati ng the advi sor y guidel i ne cal cul ati ons ar e s ubj ect to h ar m les s e rro r an aly sis
. E.g
. , Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Abb as , 56 0 F
. 3d 66 0, 6 66 -67 (7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( ho l di ngg ui del i ne er ro r w as h ar m les s); U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Ande rs on , 51 7 F
. 3d 953, 96 5- 66 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( sam e) ; see g ener al l y Wi l l i a ms v. U nited Sta tes , 503 U
. S. 193, 203 ( 1992 ) (stating before B o o k er that gui del i ne er ro rs w er e s ubj ect to harm l ess er r o r a na l y si s)
. I n b o th A bba s a nd Ande r s on , the dist ri ct cour ts re cogni zed the disputed gu i del i ne i ssues , st ate d that thei r sente nces w ould be the s am e r ega rdl ess o f how the gui del i ne i ssues were dec id ed , a nd pro vi ded thoughtful expla n ati ons ofthei r re aso ni ng. I n such cas es, because the sente nci ng g uidel ines ar e no l onge r m andato r y, a ppel l at e co ur ts s ho ul d r ea di l y fi nd tha t g ui del i ne er ro rs ar e har m l ess . Cor r ec t appl i ca ti o n o fthe g ui del i ne s c an pr es en t m an y diffi cul t or eso ter i c questi ons, i ncl ud i ng m any th at have l i tt l e to do wi ththe ul ti m at e l egal a nd mor alj udg m en t ab out an appropr i ate se ntence. S i nce B o o k er, thi s co urt has o ften r eco gni zed thatthe sent en ci ng j ud ge m ay i m pose a r eas on able sente nce under s ecti on 3 553( a) re ga rd less o fhow a di ffi cul t guidel i ne i ssue m i ght b e r es o l ve d. “ W he n a j udg e pr o ce eds i n this m an ne r, s he m us t m ak e cl ea r tha t th e § 35 53 ( a) f ac to r s d riv e th e se ntence w i thout re gar d as t o how the pri orco nvi cti on fi ts unde r a pa r ti cul arg ui del i ne . Do i ngs o wi l l make the o fte n n i t- pi ck i ngr ev i ew o fi ss ue s l i k e th i s unde r our now advi sor y guideli ne sc hem e unneces sar y. ” U nitedN o. 09

- 1891 21 Sta tes v. Sa nn er, 56 5 F
. 3d 40 0, 4 06 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( affi r m i ng abov e-gui del i ne se ntence w i thout re gar d fo r cor re ct re so lu tio n of gu id el i n e is su e); Abb as , 56 0 F
. 3d at 666- 67 ( fi nd i ng tha t di str i ct c ourter re d in g uidel i ne cal cul ation bu t hold ing error w as ha rm less based on j ud ge’s ex p lanation of alternat ive basis f or sam e sen ten ce). I n th is case, th e j ud ge con side red th e rel evan t factors th ou gh tfully an d m ad e his i nt en tions an d reason s clear. The preci se l eve l o fl oss i n the j ud ge’s al ter nati ve gui del i ne c al cul at i o n di d no t dr i ve the fi na l de ci si o n. A s A bba s a nd An d e r s on m ake cl ear, thi s i s no t t o say t ha t a d i s t r i c tc o u r tc a n i n s u l a t e a n y s e n t e n c e fr o m a ppel l at e r ev i ew b y s ay i nga few mag i c wor ds ab o ut se c tio n 3 5 5 3(a ). Abb as , 560 F.3d at66 6-6 7; Ande rs on , 51 7 F .3 d a t 9 65 ; ac c or d , U nite d State s v. P eña-Her m osil lo , 52 2 F
. 3d 11 08 , 1 11 8 ( 10 thCi r . 2 00 8) ( fi ndi ng g ui del i ne er ro r w as not h ar m less wh er e di str i ct c ourtpro vi ded only “p erfun ctory” ex p lanation f or al tern ative rationale); see ge nera l l y Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 43 1 F
. 3d 767, 77 3- 76 ( 11 thCi r . 2 00 5) ( Car ne s, J
. , c o nc ur r i ng ) ( en co ur ag i ng dist ri ct court s to provi de al ter nati ve sente nci ng r ati onal es w here r eso l uti on o fdi sputed gui del i ne i ssues would not affec t senten ce s)
. Butwher e th e r ec o r d s ho ws tha t th e dist ri ct c ourtco nsi dered the di sputed gui del i ne i ssue, co ns i der ed th e pr o spe cttha t i ts de ci si o n o n the i ssue m i ght b e wrong, and provid ed a thoughtful expla nati on ofi ts re aso ns under s ecti on 3 553( a) , i t s hou ld be re l ati v e l y e a s y t o fi nd tha ta n e r r o r i n c a l c ul a t i ngan adv i so r y g ui del i ne was ha r m less, a s Ib el i ev e th i s o ne w as. I n som e im port ant r espect s, thi s ca se provi des a22 N o. 09

- 1891

m irr or-i m age of U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sp ano , 47 6 F.3d 476 ( 7th Cir
. 20 07), a publi c co rr uptio n case i n w hi ch the dist ri ct cour t i m posed a sente nce o n one defe nd an t th at w as su bs ta nt i al l y hi g he r tha n the pr op er g ui del i ne r an g e. The di st r i ctc o ur t i m po se d a n upwa r d de par tu r e o ff o ur levels for extraord inary abu se of trust, and this cou rt he l d th at th e dec i si o n was an er r o r . W e f o und th at the er r o r was ha r m l es s, ho wev er, b ec au se the j udg e ex pla i ned w hy he thought a guidel i ne se ntence that did notta ke i nto acco unt the egr egi ous abuse o ftr ust wo u l d n o tb e a d e q u a t e . D e s p i t e th e g u i d e l i n e e r r o r, we uphe l d the abo ve - gu ideli ne s en te nc e as a pr o pera nd sensibl e e xerci se ofthe dist ri ct c ou rt ’s d i scr eti on under se c tio n 35 53 (a). Id. at4 80

- 81
. I n thi s ca se i nv o l ving pr i va te c o r r upt i o n, the di st r i ct cour t i m po se d a s en tence bel ow th e c or re ct guidel i ne r ange, but w i th a re aso nabl e ex er ci se o ftha t sa m e di sc r et i o n. The m aj or i ty i denti fi es th ree r eas ons w hy the l oss ca l cu latio n e r r o r s ho ul d no t be de emed h ar m l es s an d concl ud es furtherthatthe case sho uld be re m anded to an o th erdi st r i ctj ud ge un d erCi r cui t Rul e 36 t o e ns ur e th e g o v e r n me n ta f a i r h e a r i n g . I n m y vi e w, th e c r i t i c i s ms here a r e n o twa r r a nt e d, a nd the g o v e r nme ntr e c e i v e d a f ai r hear i ng be f or e the di str i ct c ourt
. F i r st, the maj o r i tyc r i ti ci ze s th e di stri ctc o ur t f o r b as i ng the a lternati ve sente nci ng r ati onal e o n the ass um pti on that the guidel i ne l oss co u ld have bee n no hi gherthan $5 00 , 00 0, whi chw oul d putthe s en te nc i ngg ui del i ne ra nge tw o offense l eve l s l owe r than the co rr ect ra ngeN o. 09

- 1891 23

T he corr ect g u id eline calcu lation st a r ts w ith a b ase o ffen se 1 le vel o f6 un de r U. S
. S
. G. § 2 B1
. 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) , a dds 1 6 l e ve l s un der § 2B 1.1(b)(1)( I) for a loss o f m or e tha n o ne m illion d ol l a rs, and s ub tr act s two l evels f or acc eptance ofres p o n sibili ty und er § 3 E 1 .1 (a ), fo r a to t a l o ff e n se le v e l o f 2 0 . W i th V r d o l y a k ’s c ri m ina l hi s t or y c at eg or y ofI , the s en t en c i ng g ui del i ne r ang e i s 33 t o 4 1 m onths i n pr i s on. Us i ng a l os s of$5 00 , 00 0, the dist ri ctcourt ass um ed an up w ard ad ju st m ent of14 and a tot al off en s e l eve l of 18 , with a gui del i ne ra nge of 27 to 33 m onth s i n pr i s on. he r e. The di st r i ctc o ur t’s tho r o ugh di sc us si o n o fthe

1 f acto rs r el evantto se ntenci ng under s ecti on 3 553 ( a) showed thatthe tw o- l eve l di ffer ence w oul d not hav e m ade any differ ence i n the cour t’s ult i m ate deci si on, so th e e rr ori n cal cul ati ng the l oss under the gui del i nes h ad n o e ffec t. T h e s en te n c in g ra n g e t h at is 14 lev els bel ow level2 0 ( th e co r r ec t l ev el ) i s th e sa m e as the ran ge th at is 14 l evel s b e low the level 18 the d istri ct cou rt consi dered as i ts al ter nati ve

— ze ro to six m on th s in pri son. A nd i n f act, tho ugh w e r each the co ncl usi on f ro m o pp osi te dir ect ions, the m aj or i ty and I ag re e that ther e i s no poi nt i n re m anding the c ase to Ju d ge Sh ad u r for a n ew g u id elin e c alc u lat ion an d im p os iti on o fthe sam e s entence as befor e. W here the m aj or i ty se es a “ ca sc ade o fe r r o r s an d o m i ss i o ns , ” Is ee j us t o ne ha r m l es s er r o r i n the a dvi so r y g ui del i ne c al cul at i o n. Se cond, the m aj or i ty cri ti ci zes th e d i str i ct c ourtf or be l i ev i ngthe de fen dan t i nt en ded no ha r m t o the m edi calscho oland actual l y intended to benefi t i t by ar r a n gin g for th e h igh es t b id from Sm ith field . Th is c rit i-24 N o. 09

- 1891 ci sm does notacc urat el y r efl ect the r eco rd . O n t h e fi rs t p oint, t h e d istri ct cou rt point ed out correc tly that th ere w as no e vi de nce th atthe de fen dan t i nt en ded to hur t th e m edi ca l s ch o o l, s ee Go v’ t App. a t 25 , a nd the g o ve r nm en t i ts el fha d s ubmi tt ed ev i den ce sh o wi ngtha t th e defe nd ant had wa n te d S m i thfi el d to pay “t op dol l ar ” f or the pr oper ty. S ee Def. Reply M em . at8 ( quoti ng r eco rded conve rs ati on o n M ar ch 31, 20 06)
. The di str i ct c ourtnece ssar i l y r eco gni zed, however, thatthe de fendant m ust h av e re aliz ed th at h is h elp for h is f rie n d L ev in e w ou ld hurt the m edi calschool b y d i sto rt i ng the sa l e pr oce ss i n f av o r o fthe c o r rupt s i de dea l t o b en efi t Lev i ne a nd the defendant. That’ s why the d efe nd ant i s guil ty. That’ s why the di str i ct c ourtacc epted hi s pl ea ofgui l ty. On the se con d poi nt, the furthes t the di str i ct j ud ge w en t w as to not e several t im e s that the d efend an t’s “fi nd er ’s fee” ( 10 perce nt o fthe pu rchas e pr i ce, to be sp li t w ith Le vine) w ou ld go up as Sm ithfiel d ’s pu rchas e o fferwent up
. Gov’t A p p. 21

- 22, 25
. Ido not fi nd i n the re cor d any i nd i cati on that the di str i ct j ud ge though t th at the defendant, wh o had pled g uil ty to a seri ous c ri m e a nd wh om he was s entenci ng f orthat cri m e, act ed w i th the i ntent to benefi t the m edi cal sc ho o l

. The di st r i ctj udg e unde r st o o d ho w Lev i ne a nd V rd ol yakhad cor rupted the sal e pr oce ss

— Vrdol yakhad p led gu ilty , afte r all. Thir d, the m aj or i ty cri ti ci zes the dist ri ct c ourtf or g i vingt o o much wei g htt o numer o us l et te r s ur g i ng l en ien cy i n sent enci ng wh i l e g i vi ng to o l i ttl e wei ght t o in for m at ion th at h u r t th e d efe n d an t’s ca u se . On th is topi c, the m aj or i ty i denti fi es th re e m or e s peci fi c er ro rs :N o. 09

- 1891 25 f ai l i ngt o di sc us s ade quatel y the i nf o r m at i o n wei g hi ng ag a i n s t t he de f en dan t, f ai l i ng t o c o ns i der t he defe nd ant’ s w ea lth a nd i ts effect on hi s abi l i ty to show m itig a t in g good w orks, an d i gn oring the de fend an t’s ea r l i erwor ka s ani nfl ue nt i alChi ca g o a l der m an . T h e s e c r i t i c i s ms a r e n o twa r r a n t e d

. T h e r ec o r d s h o ws th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t g av e c arefula nd di sc r i m i na ting con sid e ration to the m iti gating an d aggravat ing inform at i o n. The l et te r s i n mi ti g at i o n c ame fr o m the defen dan t’ s fa m i l y a nd fr i en ds, a nd fr o m o th er s who described w ays i n w hi ch the defe nd ant had hel ped them o verthe ye ar s. The dis tr i ct j ud ge sai d that those l ett er s were an “e xtra or dinar y o utpouri ng tha t’ s no t m atched

— at l eas t in m y r eco l l ecti on

— i n any other ca se tha t Iha ve ha d c o m i ngup to b e 29 y ea r s o n the bench. ” Gov’ t Ap p. 76
. L ike vi c t im im p act sta tem en ts, su ch l etters are en tir ely ap p ro p ria te in a se n te n c in g h ea rin g. C f. G all , 552 U
. S. a t 43 ( affi rm i ng be l ow-gui del i ne se ntence of p ro b ati on wh er e di str i ct c ourtr el i ed i n parto n “sm all fl o o d” o fl et te r s f r o m f ami l y, fr i en ds, ne i g hb o r s, a nd busi ness ass oci ate s)
. T h e di str i ct c ourthas an o bl i gat i on to co ns i ders uchl et te r s when co ns i der i ngthe hi story a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s o fthe de fe nd an t
. S e e 1 8 U. S
. C. § 35 53 ( a) ( 1)
. S uch l et te r s o fte n a dd l i tt l e to the r el ev an t picture ofthe def endant and hi s cr i m e, but som eti m es they can pro vid e unexp ecte d i nfo rm ati on a nd add new insights i nt o the d efend an t’s cha racter. This w as such a case . The ve ter an di str i ct j ud ge w as su r pr i se d b y whathe l ea r ne d. Li k e al m o ste ve r y o ne26 N o. 09

- 1891

w ho has l i ved i n Chicag o ove r the pastthr ee or f o ur dec ade s, th e j udg e ha d be en g en er al l y awar e of the re p u ta tio n of “F as t E d d ie” V rd oly ak, lea d er of th e o p p os itio n t o M a yo r H ar old W as h in gt on an d p ow er br ok er in Ch i c a g o pol i ti c s . T he j ud g e di d h i s b e s tt o p uta s i de th o se pr ec o nc ept i o ns a nd t o a ppr o ac h the s en te nc i ng deci si on with an o pen m i nd

. H e e xplai ned candidl y: W he n If irs t en co unt er ed th e ca se , a nd thr o ug ho ut i ts pend ency, Ineve r expected thatIwas go i ng to reac h the de st i na ti o n tha t Ifi nd c al l ed f o r he r e. And as Iha ve i ndi ca te d, Ih ad (as Is us pec t an ybo dy who ha s se en th e po l i ti ca l en vi r o nm en t i n Chi ca g o o ver a l o ngt i m e f r ame pr o bably sh ar ed) a pe r ce pti o n o fo ur defe nd ant t oday that Isuppose i s e pit om i zed by the m oni ke r “Fa st Ed die , ” i nd eed fro m the so- cal l ed CouncilW ar s that e xi ste d duri ng the H ar ol d W ashi ngton m ayo ra l ty. Gov’ t Ap p. 13 5- 36. I n ex p laining that he would have r e a c he d the s a me r e s ul t r e g a r dl e s s o f the g ui de l i ne l oss c a l c ul a t i o n, the j ud g e s a i d: I n a ny e ve nt, the po i ntI thi nktha t i s m o sti m po r ta nt i s th a twh e n Ia p p l i e d 3 5 5 3 ( a ) Iwo u l d r e a c h t he sam e r esul t whicheve r oftho se views [ about l oss und erthe gui d el i nes] i s t ake n. A nd that ’ s be cause Iag ain s u rp ris ed m yse l fi n ter m s o fhow I l oo ked at thi s thingc o mi ngi n, wi th the ab s e nc e o fa ful l a ppreci ati on o r fullundersta nd i ng o r dis cl osur e o f w hat the thi ng in volv ed. Iwould not have dream ed ofi m posi ng a noncusto dialse n te n c e. But Ihave go t to tel l yo u that w hen yo u l oo k a t the 35 53( a) f acto rs ,N o. 09

- 1891 27 i t se e ms t o me th a t th e r e a s o n a b l e r e s u l t, th e o ne th ati s ca l l ed for taki nga l l o fthe c o ns i der at i o ns i nt o a c c o un t, i s j us twh a tIh a v e i nd i c a t e d. Id

. at13 8. These f ra nk o bserv at ions ofthe j ud ge

— ab o ut th e w ays in w hich th e f acts overcam e the de fend an t’s publ i c r epu ta ti o n a nd pe r su ade d the j udg e to r ea cha re sul t he had no t expected to re ach

— deser ve substa nti al w ei ght. Contrar y t o the m aj or i ty’ s cr i ti ci sm s about f ai l i ng to co ns i derthe de fen dan t’ s wea l tha nd i nfl uenc e, th e d istri ct ju d ge w as d iscrim inating in w eighing th e letters about the defend an t’s chara cter
. Duri ng the defense pr e s e nt a t i o n, the j ud g e c o mm e nt e d: I am n ot s u re th at th in gs th at are d on e fo r fam ily m em bers ca rry

— o r for thatma t t e r f o r wh a t ’ s c a l l e d a pu bl i c per sona car ri es

— m u c h w eig h t. At l e as tas Ire ad t he s ele t t e rs , t het hi ng t hatIf oun d f r ankly mostpe rs uas i ve on hi s par twe r ethethi ngs thatwe r eno tvis i b l e, an d thi ngs i n whi ch atl e as tac co r di ng t o the se pe opl ehere ac he d ou t i n s i t uat i ons whe r ehene e d n othav edon es o. Hehadno ob l iga t i on t o do t ha t e i t he r moral l y or othe r wi s e and did it a ny w a y. A nd th at’s fran kly th e rea son that Icha racteri zed the l ett er s that Ir ecei ved

— not si m plyi n ter m s o f vol u m e, but i n ter m s o fi m pact

— as g i vingthe k i nd ofas tonish in gl y di ffer ent por tr aya l than w hat y ou have chara cter i zed as publi c per sona. G ov’t A p p . 93 (em p ha sis add ed ). The mos t i m po r ta ntmit i g at i ng inf o r m at i o n h er e i nvolv ed n ot the “checkboo k c hari ty” thatcan be e asyf or28 N o. 09

- 1891

“But, su rely , i fe ver a m an i s t o r ec ei ve c re di tf or the goo d 2 he ha s done , an d hi s i m m edi at e m iscon ductas s es s ed i n the c ont ex tofhi s ove ra l l l i f e hi the rto , its houl d be atthe m om en t of hi s s e nt e nc i ng, whe n hi s ve r y futur e ha ng s i n the balance. Th i s e l e m e nt a r y pr i nc i pl e ofwe i gh i ng the g oo d wi th the ba d, w hich is b a sic to all the g rea t religio ns, m or al p hilo sop hies, and s yst em s ofj usti ce, w as plainl y part o f w h a t Congress had in m ind w h en it dir ect ed courts to consi der, as a nec es sar y s en t en c i ng f ac t or, ‘ the hi s t or y a nd c har ac t er i s t i c s ofthe defen dan t. ’ ” U ni t ed Sta t es v. A del so n , 441 F. Supp . 2 d 506, 513- 14 (S.D .N .Y . 20 0 6 ), a

f f ’ d me m. , 30 1 F ed . A p p x. 9 3 (2d C ir . 20 0 8 ). th e wea l th y, b utmany i nstan ce s i n whi chthe de fen dan t provi ded hands-o n hel p i n l ong- ter m r el ati onship s with p eo p le in n ee d , or w h er e h e p ro vid ed g e n e ro u s h elp anonym ousl y. The dist ri ct j ud ge’ s com m ents show th at he wa s muc h mor e i mpr e s s e d b y the s e ma nyi ns tances of t h e d e fen d an t’s ge n er os ity an d kin d n es s w ith h is ti m e an d i nfl ue nc e i n s i tu at i o ns w he re the r e was no vi sibi l i ty orpubli c r ew ar d fo r hi s a cti ons. 2 Eve n wi ththe appro pr i at e di sc o unt i ngde si r ed bythe m aj or i ty, the l ett er s s ti l l have unusual persuas i ve w eight, and the d is trict court w as no t requ ired to ignore or discou nt th e ev iden ce of past good w orks. T he m aj ori ty’ s o bservat i on that weal thy defendants sho uld not geta bre ak com pared to pooro nes m er el y bec au se th ey h av e give n aw ay so m e of th eir w ea lth is c e r ta in ly tr u e b u t m iss e s t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s re al p oin t in wei g hi ngthi s m i ti g at i ngi nf o r m at i o n. The maj o r i tywri te s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t “i g no r ed th e f act that the defendant w as f orm any y ear s a nN o. 09

- 1891 29

The let ter s ofD r. M ark Si egleran d o th ers descr ibed several 3 i ns t a nc e s i n w hichthe de f e nd a nti nt e r ve ne d t o e nabl e n e e dy peop le to obtain l ive- saving m edical car e that was not otherwis e ava i l abl e t o the m . Se e Def

. Ex. N (Sie gl er )
. The l et t erof Jona tha n K leinb ard , a form er v ice p resid en t o f the U niv ersity ofC hicago, t ol d o fa c a s e i n whi c h Vrd ol ya k r e pr e s e nt e d a pl ai nt i ffs ui ng the U ni ver s i t y ofChi c ago M edi c al Ce nt erf or m edi c al m al pra c t i c e. Vrdol y ak fail ed i n h i s e ff or tt o s et t l e the (co n tin u ed ...) in flu e n tia l C h ica go ald er m an .” Slip op . at 1 3. T h is fa c t is re lev an t, t h e m ajorit y a ss er ts , bec au se p olit icia n s a re in th e bus i ne ss o fdi spensing f av o r s, s o tha t l at ere xpress i ons ofgr ati tude f orpol i ti ci ans’ larg ess e s houl d not be gi ven w ei ght i n a sente nci ng deci si on. This c rit i ci sm is not w arran t e d . Th e d efend an t left pu bli c office m ore th an 20 ye ar s a g o , l o n g b efo re m os t o f th e e ve n ts cit ed in m itig at ion
. H is h ist or y in C h ica go p olit ics an d p u b lic l i fe ce rt ai nl y di d not e scape the di str i c t j u d ge’ s no ti ce. The dis tr i ct j ud ge’ s co m m ent quot ed abo ve

— di sc o unt i ng let te rs ab ou t th in gs th e d efe n d an t h ad d on e fo r h is “ p u b lic perso na”

— sh o ws tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t was qui te c o ns c i o us o f pr e c i s e l y the po i nt the maj o r i t y f a ul t s hi m f or i g no r i ng . S ee a l so Go v’ t App. 1 37( co ur t r efer r ing t o “ th e extr aor dinar y v ol um e a nd cha ra c tero fthe thi ngs that Ir ecei ved i n supp or t o f M r. Vrdol yak, the ki nd s o f thi ng tha t the publ i c per sona w oul d neverhave dream ed exi ste d, and I c er tainl y no t”)
. I n other w or ds, the l ett er s that i m press ed the cour t m ostwere thos e add re ssi ng pri vate act i ons that w er e no t desi gned to hel p the defendant hi m sel f, i n hi s pri vate o r pu bl i c l i fe. 330 N o. 09

- 1891

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 c as e with Kl ei nbar d’ s help , an d he e ven t ual l y won a j udgm en t “in the m il li ons ofdollar s. ” K le inbard reported that V rdolyak the n don at ed h i s e nt i re l eg al fee t o the Uni versi t y ofChi c ago M ed ic a l C en te r. D ef. E x. Z
. The maj o r i tyc r i ti ci ze s th e di st r i ctc o ur t for nots ay i ng m or e about evi dence putti ng the defendant’s cha ra cter i n a b ad l i ght. T h e d i str i ct c ourtsho w ed that i t was f am i l i arwith th e ev id en c e th e go ve rn m ent had su bmi tt ed, i nc l udi ng th e i nc i den ts ci te d f r o m th e d ef en dant’s l ega l car eer . The co urt ac kn ow l edged the “subst an ti ali nf o r m at i o n tha t’s unf av o r ab l e to Vr do l y ak ” an d sai d i t wa s re m i nd ed ofDr. J eky l l and M r. H yde, as defen se c o uns elu rge d a s en te nc e f o r Dr
. J eky l l a nd the gov er nm ent ur ged a sente nce f orM r. H yde. Gov’ t Ap p. 76
. The c o u r ts p e c i fi c a l l y a s k e d th e d e fe n s e t o a d d r e s s the l a w ye r d isc ip lin ar y m at te rs , id. at 127, and the defe nse p r o v i d e d ex pl a n a t i o n s th a to ffe r e d a tl e a s ts o me m itig at in g e ffec t. Id. at 128- 29. C rit ici sm o fthe dist ri ct cour t f orhavi ng f ai l ed to sa y m or e about these ev en ts , whi chha d b eenthe s ubj ec t o ft wo c en su r es a nd one sh or t suspensi on fro m prac ti ce, dem ands to o m uchfr o m a n o r als en te nc i nge xpl an at i o n. Bas ed o n wha t i s des cr ibed as a “c as ca de o fe r r o r s an d om iss ion s,” th e m ajorit y ord er s a re m an d u n d er C irc u it Rul e 3 6 t o a n o th e r d i s t r i c tj u d g e f o r a fr e s h l o o ka tt he sente nce. Ise e instea d j ust o ne har m l ess er ro r, and Ido not bel i ev e th e g o ve r nm en t was de ni ed a f ai rhe ar i ng . The m aj or i ty concl ud es that J ud ge Shadur “ h ad co m m i tte d hi m se l fi r r ev o cabl y t o a no nc us to di als en tence f o r theN o. 09

- 1891 31 defen dan t. ” S l i p o p. a t 14
. The m aj o r i tyc r i ti ci ze s th e j ud ge f orhavi ng announced thi s v i ew nearthe ou tse t o f the s e nt e nc i ngh e a r i ng, b e f or e t he g o v e r nme nth a d a chance t o ar gue fora custo dial se ntence. Thi s cr i ti ci sm i s o ffta rg et f ortwo r eas ons. F i r st, i t f ai l s to ackno wl edg e ho w m uchwor kthe par ti es a nd the d is tr i ctc o ur t ha d puti nt o the s en tenci ng deci si on bef or e the hear i ng i tse l f

. I n d et ail ed w ri tte n br i ef s, the p ar tie s had se t f or th the i r posi ti ons on th e g ui del i ne i ss ue s, the s ec ti o n 3 55 3( a) f ac to r s, a nd the sen ten ce th at w ou ld be ap p rop ria t e. T he district j ud ge’s com m ents thro ughout the se ntenci ng hea ri ng sho w that he full y u n derst oo d the par ti es’ posi ti ons f ro m the outset
. H avi ng done s uch extensi ve prepar at i o n, i t would have been unu sualf orthe j ud ge not to have had a good i dea how he inten d ed to se ntence the defendant, and w hy, at the b eginning ofthe sente nci ng hea ri ng. Sec o nd , the f a c ttha tthe j ud g e s i g na l e d h i s i nfor m ed i n c l i n a t i o n s e a r l y i n t h e h e a r i n gdo e s n o tc a l l f o r c r i t i c i s m. M ostl aw yer s a pp re ci ate kno w i n g m ore r atherthan l ess ab o utthe j udg e’ s th i nk i ngwhi le the r e i s st i l l a n o ppo r tu
nity to p ersu ad e the co u r t . T h is cri ticism i s no m ore w ar ran ted than w oul d be cr i ti ci sm thatan a pp el l ate j ud ge had a vi ew o fthe case atthe beginning ofan oral argu m en t. Suc h vi ew s d o not m ean th at m ind s are cl o se d t o fur th erpe r su as i o n b y pr o ba ti ve e vi den ce a nd legal argu m en t. See a ls o G ov’t A p p . 76-77 (district court i nv i t i ngv i e ws a nd s t a t i ng“ Ir e a l l y h ave n o tr e a c he d a concl usi on”)
. J ud ges m ust k eep thei r m i nd s op en to ne w i nf o r m at i o n tha t w il l c ha ng e th ei r thi nk i ng, a s th e dist ri ct j ud ge did i n thi s ca se. A nd wh er e the m aj or i ty32 N o. 09

- 1891

T h e m ajority criticizes the d istrict cou rt for refusin g to 4 consi der after
- the- f actevidence from other i nter es ted buy ers a b o u t h ow m uch m ore they w ould hav e been will ing t o of f er for the p r op erty
. I see no ab u se of d iscretion in the d ist r i c tc o u r t ’s d e c i si o n n o tto sp e n d ti m e o n th e g o v e r n m e n t ’s sp ecu lativ e e ffo rt to sho w the lik ely resu lt of an h on est eff ort to have s old the property f or the bestavail able pri ce. fi nds i n the r ec o r d a dist r i ctj udg e who was wi th o ut j usti fi cati on i m pati ent a nd angr y with the gov er nm ent, Ifi nd a f ra n k a nd wide- ra ngi ng di scussi on o fthe i ssues in th e c as e, an d so m e re as on ab le a n n o y a n c e w ith ov er ly agg re ssi ve ar gum ents and i nvi tat i ons to specul ate
. 4 P er h ap s t h e m os t re m ar ka b le t h in g a b ou t t h e w ay th is cas e ha s pr o ce ede d o n a ppea l i s th atthe g o ve r nm en t’ s br i ef s di d no t ch al l en g e th e r eas o nabl en es s o fthe sente nce o r as k forr em and to a di ffer ent j ud ge. I n i ts openi ng br i ef, the gov er nm ent a rgued on ly th e guidel i ne l oss er ro r. T h e gov er nm ent di d not e ven bo therto m enti on the di str i ct c ourt ’ s a l ter nati ve gui del i ne cal cul ati on an d ana l y si s unde r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 55 3( a)
. W he r e th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s s t a t e d s u c h a n a l t e r n a t i v e b a s i s, we shoul d tre at the a pp el l ant’ s s i l ence a s a t l eas t a f o r fei tu r e o fthe i ss ue . And i t i s ha r d t o beli eve thatthe go ve rn m en t’s ap p ro ac h to th is a p p ea l w as n otca re fu lly c on sid er ed in e ve ry res p ec t. W e w ou ld be ju st ified in fi nd i ng a w ai verbas ed on the go ver nm ent’ s f ai l ure to add re ss the a l ter nati ve cal cul ati on a nd i ts fai l ure to chal l enge the r eas onabl eness o fthe sente nce. F i n a l l y, a l th o u g h i ti s e v i d e n tt h a tth e maj o r i t y v i e ws the sente nce here as si m ply not heavy enough to p u n i shN o. 09

- 1891 33 th is cri m e ad eq ua tely, w e shou ld n ot overlook an im p ortant dim ensi on o fthi s s entence thatm ay i n the e nd be m ore pow erfu l th an a shorter p rison term
. Th e idea of a p ers o n as p rom inen t as E d Vrd olyak doing 2500 h ou rs o fc o m m u n ity se rv ice in C h ica go h as ele m en ts of p u b lic sham i ng and se rv i ce th at w er e wel l withi n the dist ri ct cou rt ’ s di scr eti on i n deci ding how bes t t o acco m pli sh the purpos es ofse ntenci ng with a s entence “s uffi ci en t, b u t n otgre at er t h an n ec es sa ry ,” as se c tio n 35 53 (a) d ir e c t s . I ti s h a r d t o i ma g i n e th a tt hi s d e fe n d a n t ’ s c o mm u n ity se rv ice co u l d be co m p let ed w ith ou t c on sid er ab le ne ws medi a at te nt ion, whi chwoul d a dd t o the deter re nt effect ofthatpor ti on o fthe sente nce. I n s um, the r e c o r d h e r e s ho ws tha ta n e xp e r i e nc ed j ud ge consi dered the cas e thoughtfu lly and l ear ned i nf o r m at i o n tha t o ve r ca m e hi s i ni tial i nc l i na ti o ns i n the case (a nd ma nyp ub l i c r e a c t i o ns t o the c a s e )
. T he j udge ex er ci se d hi s di sc r et ion u nde r s ec ti o n 3 55 3( a) a nd i m po se d a s en te nc e r easo nabl y t ai l o r ed to fi t bo ththe c r i me a nd the c r i mi na l

. T ho ugh the maj or i ty a nd I disa gr ee w i th the di str i ct j ud ge on the l oss cal cul ati on und erthe advi sor y s entenci ng g uidel i nes, thater ro r w as ha r m l es s be ca us e i t di d no t dr i ve the fi na l s en te ncing dec i si o n un ders ec ti o n 3 55 3( a)
. Iwoul d a ffi r m the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent.

1- 29- 10