2009 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 2-20-2009 

# U SA v . Lev y P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-1649

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . L ev y " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1849. h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1849

### Th e Hon . J oseph H . Rodri gu ez , Senior Dis tric t Jud ge of the Unite d S tate s Dis tric t * 

### Court for the Di s tr i c t

of Ne w J e r s e y , s i tt i ng by de s i gnat i on. NOT 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 o. 07- 1649 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. I GAL S HAR ON L E VY, A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r t h e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( N o. 06- cr - 00056) D istri ct C o u rt : H o n . Jo sep h J. F arn an , Jr. Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay15, 2008 B e f o re : M c K E E a n d G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges , a n d R O D R IG U E Z , 

### Se ni or Di s tr i c t J udge * O pi ni on fi l ed: Februar y20, 2009

OP I NI ON M c K E E , C i r cui tJudge . I gal Shar on L evyappea l s a s ent ence t hatw as i m pos ed fol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i on for t w o count s of w i r e fr aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1343, and one c ountof ac ces s devi ce fra u d , in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 0 2 9 (a)(2). Fo r t h e re aso n s tha t fo ll o w , w e w il l aff irm2

t he 40 mont h s ent ence t hatw as i m pos ed. I. In a sm u c h a s w e w rite p rim a rilyf o r th e p a rties , itis n o t n e c e ss a ryto re c ite th e f a c ts of t hi s cas e exc epti ns ofaras m aybe hel pful t o ourbr i ef di s cus s i on. L e v ya rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt im p o se d a n u n re a so n a b le s e n ten c e b e c a u se it fai l ed t o adequa t el ycons i derand appl yt he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . L evy focus es t hi s at t ack on the fol l ow i ng excha nge betw een the cour tand t he r epr es ent at i ve of t h e v i c t i m , C i r c u i tC i t y:

TH E CO URT: L e t mea sk you thi s q ue sti on . Se ntenc ing s a

redif fi c ult , particula rly for non- violent white collar c rimes. I understand you have this loss. B e lie veme , I

fu lly un de rs tand

theimp a c t th at it

ha s o n e mpl oye e s, particula rly in that store where it has to come out of the ir dollars. Suppose you were me sitting he re. I f I incarcerate Mr. L evy , the cha nces of you g etting restitution go dra stically down, dra stically

down. MR. TEL LER: Yes. TH E CO URT: B e c a

us e theg ov e rnme nt w ou ld w ant m e to i nc arc e ratehim fo r 3 7 to 40 months , . . . Ido n’ t kn owho w muc h r e sti tution you c an g e t. P ro ba

bly not goingto be any

thing ne ar a

hundred thousand dollar s, beca use I can only order and super vise it during someperiod of supe rvised re leaseafte r inca rce ration. * * * THE COURT: Do you think Ishould givehim the time the government wa nts meto o r s ho uld

Iso me ho w . . . re du c e that ti meand kin d o f g ivea

little more a ssuranc e that you will ge t more of that restitution back than you’ll g et if I d o th e gu i d e l i n e ? MR. TEL LER: Iwould g ive him the time. (App. 46-48.)3

L ev yarg u es th at t h is ex ch an g e su g g ests that the c o u rtsu b sti tuted the v ict im ’s j udgm entfori t s ow n and t her efor e t he cour tdi d notr eas onabl ycons i derorappl yal l of th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs . W e d is a g re e . I n ourvi ew , t hi s excha nge s how s t hatt he cour tver yt hought ful l yt r i ed t o bal ance t he nee d and conc er ns of t he vi ct i m agai ns tt he obl i gat i on t o i m pos e a s ent ence t hat
w oul d r efl ectt he s er i ous nes s of t he cr i m e and de t erfutur e cr i m i nal i t y . W e r evi ew t he d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s s e n te n c e f o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 326- 27 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he cour tw as t r y i ng t o avoi d puni s hi ng t he vi ct i m byi m pos i ng a s e n t e n c e o n t h e d e f

e n d a n tt h a tw o u l d g r e a t l yr e d u c e t h e c h a n c e o f r e s t i tu t i o n . We t her efor e t hi nk t he cour t ’ s i nqui r yw as per fec t l yappr opr i at e. M or eover , i tr efl ect s t he
car eful t houghtand cons i der at i on of t he § 3553( a) fac t or s t hatL evyi ns i s t s w as l acki ng. M or eover , t hi s i s nott he onl yevi dence of t he cour t ’ s r eas oni ng i n fas hi oni ng a s ent ence . O urr evi ew of t he ent i r e r ecor d r evea l s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s “meani ngful
con si derat i on ” and detai l ed ex planat i on of the app l i cat i on of the § 3 55 3(a) fact ors. C ooper , 437 F. 3d at329. T he di s t r i ctcour tcons i der ed t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the o ff en se a n d ref

ere n ce d the s ize o f th e los s. T h e c o u rtalso ex p resse d co n ce rn r egar di ng t he br i ef t i m e per i od overw hi ch Levycaus ed r oughl y$600, 000 of fi nanci al h a rm . T he cour tcons i der ed t he nee d t o pr ot ectt he publ i c, and expr es s ed par t i cul ar c o n c e rn a b o u t v u ln e ra b le c o n su m e rs a n d e m p lo y e e s, a s w e ll as th e h a rsh e c o n o m iccons equenc es of cr edi tcar d fr aud. T he r ecor d al s o es t abl i s hes t he cour t ’ s car eful

co n side rati o n o f th e n ee d to b alan ce resti tuti o n to the v ict im w ith g en era l deterren ce . In fac t , t hatcons i der at i on i s ampl ydemonst r at ed byt he exc hange c i t ed above t hatL evy rel i es upo n to chal l eng e t he co urt ’s con si derat i on of the § 3 55 3(a) fact ors. W e a lso d isa g re e w ith L e v y ’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e d istric t co u rt e ss e n tially

“ p u n ish e d ” L e v yf

o r f ili n g f o r b a n k ru p tcy. In d e e d , o u r re v iew o f th e re c o rd lea d s u s to concl ude t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tm ent i oned Levy ’ s fi l i ng forbankrupt cyi n i t s cons i der at i on of var i ous § 3553( a) fac t or s , par t i cul ar l yt he “na tur e and c i r cumst ance s of t he off ens e” f a c to r. L e v y ’s a rg u m e n t is th e re f o re w ith o u t m e rit.

II . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof s ent ence .

.