The Honorable Mir iam Goldman Cedarbaum, of the United States Distr ict Court for the * Southern Distr ict of New York, sitting by de signation. 1 09 -2 70 4- cr Unite d S tat es v. Re gen sb erg 

### UN I TE D STATE S COURT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 

## SUM M A RY OR DER RULI NGS BY S UM M ARY ORD ER DO NOT H AVE PRECED ENT I AL EF FE CT. CI TAT I ON TO A S UM M ARY OR DE R F I L E D AF T E R J AN UA RY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RMI T T E D AN D I S GO VE RN E D B Y F E DE RA L R UL E OF APPELLATE PROCED URE 32 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A DOC UM ENT FI LED W I TH T H IS C O U R T , A P A R T Y M U S T C IT E E IT H E R T H E F E D E R A L A P P E N D IX O R A N E L E C T R O N IC DATA BASE ( W I TH TH E NOTA TI ON “ SUM M ARY ORD ER”) . A PARTY CI TI N G A S UM M ARY ORD ER M UST S ERVE A C OPY O F I T ON AN Y PARTY N OT REPRESENTED BY CO UNSEL. A ta s t at ed t erm of

the U ni t ed St at es Courtof A ppeal s f

orthe Second Ci r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y or k, on the 18 day of J une, tw o thous and and t en. th PRES ENT: R A L P H K . W IN T E R ,

PETE R W . HA LL,

C i r cui tJudges , MI R I A M G O L D MA N C E D A R B A U M,

D is tr i ct Judge . *

__________________________________________ U N I TED STA TES, Appel l ee ,

v. D ocketN o. 09- 2704- cr HAYI M RE GE NS BE RG ,

D ef endant-Appel lant .

__________________________________________2

F OR AP P E L L ANT : Da r r e l l B. F i e l d s , Ne w Yo r k , NY. FOR A PP ELLEE: M I CHAEL L EV Y , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney, ( J oan M . L oughnane, M ar c P. B er ger , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A tto rn e y s , o f c o u n s e l, on the br i ef ) f orPr eetB har ar a, U ni t ed St at es A t t orney f

orthe Southern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k. A ppeal f r om a j udgm entof

convi ct i on of

the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tf ort he S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (M arrero , J. ), sen tenc ing ap p ell an t H ay im R eg en sb erg pr i nci pal l y t o one hundr ed mont hs i ncar cer at i on. UP ON DU E CO NS I DE RA T I ON , i ti s her eby ORDE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DE CRE ED thatthe j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourtbe AFF I RM ED . A ppel l antH ayi m R egens ber g appea l s f r om the J une 22, 2009 j udgm entof co n v ict ion o f th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfor the S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (M a rr e ro , J .), s e n te n c in g R e g e n s b e rg p ri n c ip a lly to o n e h u n d re d m o n th s ’ i n c a rc e ra tio n . R egens ber g w as convi ct ed, f ol l ow i ng a j ury tr i al , on tw o count s of s ecur i t i es f

r aud and f i ve count s of

w i r e f r aud. A ts ent enci ng, the di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i ned thatthe tw o- l evel s ophi s t i cat ed means enhanc ementof § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 9) ( C ) of

the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s (“ G u id e lin e s ” ) a p p lie d to R e g e n s b e rg ’s c ri m e s . U nited S tates v. R egen sberg , 63 5 F . S up p. 2d 30 6 (S. D . N . Y . 20 09 ). W e assum e t he p art i es’ fam i l i ari ty w i th the f act s, p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y , a n d i s s u e s o n a p p e a l . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m. In cal culat i ng R egen sberg’ s approp ri at e sent ence u nd er the ad vis ory G uidel i nes, the d istri ct co u rtim p o sed a tw o -l ev el en h an ce m en t un d er U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1 . 1 (b)(9 )(C ), w hi ch appl i es w her e the of f ens e “i nvol ved s ophi s t i cat ed means . ” R egens ber g chal l engesTh e g ov ernm ent urge s th e C ourt t o a pp ly c lear er

ror rev iewto o ur rev iewof

thedis tri ct 1 co urt ’s dete rminatio n th at theso ph isticated m ean s enhanc em ent appli es, as w e h av e don e whe n reviewing a di strictcourt’s de termination of whether a rol e adjustment applies . Se e Un ite d Sta tesv. Go tti , 459 F.3d 296, 349 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[A]s a general matter, in determining the appropri atestand ard

of rev iewfo r a distric t co urt ’s a pp lic ati on

of theGuide lin es to th e sp eci fi c fa cts of a ca se, wesh ould f

oll owan‘ei ther/o r appro ach ,’ a doptinga de novo stand ard of rev iew when the distr ict court ’s applic ation dete rmination was primarily legal in nature, and adopting a ‘cl ear error’ appro ach

wh enthede ter

minatio n w as p rimari ly f

act ua l.” ); seeid. at 349-50 (applying cl ear err or review where the distri ct court’ s applicat ion of a role adjus tment to the facts of the case pre sented an is sue that i s predominantly factual) . W e need not rea ch this is sue be cau se w e d eci dethat ev enun de r deno vo review the di strictcourt did noterr in appl ying a sophistic ated means enhancement in this case . 3 th is e n h a n c e m e n t. R e g e n sb e rg a lso c h a llen g e s th e su b sta n tiv e re a so n a b len e ss o f h is sent ence. “W hen a defend ant chal l eng es the d i stri ctcou rt ’s i nt er pr etat i on of

a G ui del i nes pr ovi s i on, w e r evi ew thi s i nt erpr et at i on of the G ui del i nes —

j us tas w e w oul d r evi ew t he i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f

a n y l a w— de novo . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. H

as an , 5 8 6 F . 3 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 8 (2d C ir . 2009) ( ci t i ng U

ni t ed Stat es . v. Her t ular , 5 6 2 F .3 d 4 3 3 , 4 4 9 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (“ In g e n e ra l, w e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thata def endantdes erves a[ n] . . . enhanc ement

. . . de novo . . ..” )) . W e re v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s s e n te n c in g fo r “ u n re a s o n a b le [n e s s ].” 1 U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 1 (2 0 0 5 ). A se n ten c e m u st b e b o th p ro c e d u ra lly a n d s u b s ta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . U ni t ed Stat es v. C r os by , 3 9 7 F . 3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 4 -15 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e c o n s id e r e a c h o f t h e s e p ro n g s u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , -- - U . S . -- -, -- -, 12 8 S . C t . 58 6, 59 7 (200 7). W e revi ew the reasonab l eness of a sent ence for abuse o f di scr et i on and w i l l “setasi de a d i stri ctcou rt ’s s ubs tant i ve det erm i nat i on onl y i n exce pt i onal cas es w her e the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on cannotbe l ocat ed w i thi n the r ange of

perm i s s i bl e dec i s i ons . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. R igas , 583 F. 3d 108, 122 ( 2d4

C i r . 2009) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons m arks om i t t ed) . I n exami ni ng the s ubs t ant i ve reas on ableness of

a sent ence, “w e t ake int o acco un tthe tot al i ty o f the cir cum st ances, gi vi ng due def

er ence t o t he s ent enci ng j udge’ s exer ci s e of di s cr et i on. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. C avera , 5 5 0 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 9 0 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (en b an c). R egens ber g ar gues thathi s s ent ence i s pr ocedur al l y unr eas onabl e bec aus e the s ophi s t i cat ed means enhanc ements houl d nothave be en appl i ed. T he comm ent ary t o t he G u id e lin e s d e fin e s s o p h istica ted m e a n s a s “ e sp e c ially c o m p lex o r e sp e c ially in trica te o ff e n s e c o n d u c t p e rt a in in g to th e e x e c u tio n o r c o n c e a lm e n t o f a n o ff e n s e .” U .S .S .G . § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 9) ( C ) , n. 8. H er e, the r ecor d s how s thatR egens ber g conduct ed a c om pl ex and s ophi s t i cat ed s cheme, i ncl udi ng the cr eat i on of f r audul entl oan document s , det ai l ed r eport i ng of

f ake e arni ngs , us e of

Ponzi s cheme payment s t o l ul l hi s i nves t or s , and al t erat i on of an acco un tst at em ent t o m ake itapp ear as i f he had no tl osthis i nv est ors’ m o n e y . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 346 F. 3d 22, 25 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( “[ E ] ven i f eac h s t ep i n the s cheme w as notel abor at e, the t ot al s cheme w as s ophi s t i cat ed i n the w ay al l t he ste p s w e re lin k e d to g e th e r. . . .”); U n itedS ta tes v . L e w is , 9 3 F . 3 d 1 0 7 5 , 1 0 8 3 (2d C ir . 1996) ( hol di ng, i n t ax ca s e, thatthe s ophi s t i cat ed means enhanc ementappl i ed eve n w hen “ea ch s t ep i n the pl anned t ax eva s i on w as s i m pl e, [ beca us e] w hen vi ew ed t ogether , the ste p s c o m p rise d a p lan m o re c o m p lex th a n m e re ly filli n g o u t a f a lse tax re tu rn .”). A s in L e w is , R eg en sb erg ’s offen se c o n d u ct, w h ich h e p erp etua ted fo r th ree y ea rs, w as th e so rt of “r epet i t i ve conduc t. . . [ that ] demonstr at es thatm or e than r out i ne pl anni ng w as5

i nvol ved. ” 93 F. 3d at1083. W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthata tw o- l evel enhanc ementf

ors ophi s t i cat ed means i s appr opr i at e. R egens ber g al s o ar gues thathi s s ent ence i s s ubs t ant i vel y unr eas onabl e, cl ai m i ng th a t it is a n u n re a s o n a b le p u n is h m e n t in lig h t o f t h e fa c to rs s e t f o rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) . W e f

i nd no bas i s f

orconcl udi ng thatthe pr i s on t erm i m pos ed i s unr eas onabl e, g iven that the d istri ct co u rt ’s ex tens ive a rt iculati o n o f th e re aso n s for the p ri so n term i m pos ed i s m or e than s uf f i ci entt o s how thatthe courtcons i der ed the G ui del i nes and the r equi r ed § 3553 f

act or s . T he di s tr i ctcourtw as ther ef or e r eas onabl e i n i m pos i ng R egens ber g’ s s ent ence . F or the foregoing reasons, the judgm ent of the d i stri ctcou rti s AFF I RM ED . FOR TH E CO UR T: C athe ri n e O ’H ag an W o lf e, C lerk