FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT APRI L18 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15344

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -602 35 -C R -J IC U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A R N E S O R E I D E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l18, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d C O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Soreide wa s sentence d to concur rent prison ter

ms of 60 months on each c ount of 1 c on sp ir a c y

to c omm it m a il f

ra ud and wi refra ud ; 60 months on

e a c h c ount o f c omm ittingma il fra ud and wirefra

ud; 236 months on each c ount of money laundering; 120 months on ea ch count o f e n gagi n g i np ro h ib i t edm o n et ary tran s ac t i o n s ; an d

3 6 m o nth s o nea chco unto f f i l i n g a fra ud ulent i nc omeand

c or po ratetax re tur

n. Sore idewa s also orde re d to pa y $7 ,6 03 ,9 59 .2 5 in restitution. Soreide’s sentenc e is to be followed by threeyear s of supervise d rele ase. 2 A r n e S o r e id e a p p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s f o r : 1 ) o n e c o u n t o f

c o n s p ir a c y to c om m i tm a i l f

r a ud a nd w i r e f

r a ud, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 371; 2) tw e nty - f our coun t s of m ai l fr aud, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 2, 13 41 ; 3) tw o cou nt s of w i re f r a u d , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § § 2 , 1 3 4 3 ; 4 ) f iv e c o u n ts o f

m o n e y la u n d e r in g , in vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 2, 1956( a ) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) ; 5) ni ne c ount s of m one y l a unde r i ng, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 2, 1956( a ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) ; 6) tw e nty - f i ve c ount s of

e nga gi ng i n pr ohi bi t e d m one t a r y tr a ns a c t i ons , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 2, 1957; 7) one coun tof fi l i ng a f

ra ud ul enti ncom e t ax re turn, i n v i ol at i on of 26 U . S . C . § 7 20 6(1); a nd 8) one c ountof

f i l i ng a f r a udul e ntc orpor a t e t a x r e tur n, i n vi ol a t i on of 26 U .S .C . § 7 2 0 6 ( 1 ) . S o r e id e a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly d e n ie d h is 1 m ot i on t o s e ve rthe c ons pi r a c y a nd f r a ud c ount s f

r om the r e m a i ni ng c ount s i n the i nd i ctm entand t hatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i t t ed se vera l const i tut i on al and st atut ory e r r or s i n c a l c ul a t i ng hi s s e nt e nc e . F orthe r e a s ons di s c us s e d be l ow , w e a f f i r m the c onvi c t i on, butva c a t e the s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. A rne S orei de w as the ow ner a nd chi ef exec ut i ve offi ce r of A cc ut elKi m So tti le , who wa s re sp on sib lefo r t heda y-t o- da y op e ra tio ns of Ac c ute l, w a s also 2 charg ed in the conspira cy . She pled guilty and testified ag ainst Soreide. The spec ial verdic t form aske d the jury to answer

nine questions involving: (1) the 3 amount of “a ctual loss”; (2) theamount of “intende d loss”; (3) the number of victims; (4) 3 C om m un i ca t i on s, Inc. (“ A cc ut el ”) . A cc ut el w ou l d p urchas e l on g-di st ance 2 s e r vi c e s a tw hol e s a l e pr i c e s f r om othe rl ong- di s t a nc e pr ovi de r s . I tw oul d r e s e l l the se rvi ce s by e ng agi ng i n “ sl am m i ng ” a nd “ cr am m i ng , ” i n w hi ch i tsw i t ched t el ep h o n e cu st o m ers’ l o n g d i st an ce serv i ces t o A ccu t el w i th o u tth e cu st o m ers’ pe r m i s s i on ( s l a m m i ng) a nd the n c ha r ge d the c us t om e r s a m onthl y f e e f orha vi ng A cc ut el as thei r l on g-di st ance prov i der ( cr am m i ng ). A cc ut el general l y c harged c us t om e r s a n a ddi t i ona l $4. 95 pe rm onth. A ccu t el ’ s sl am m i n g an d cram m i n g resu l t ed i n m i l l i o n s o f d o l l ars o f fal se char ges t o l on g-di st ance cust om er s. A cc ut el tra nsm i t t ed i t s c harges t o cust om er s b y p r o v id in g o u ts id e te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s c o n s u ltin g c o m p a n ie s w ith b illin g d a ta . T hos e c om pa ni e s w oul d the n pr oc e s s the da t a a nd w i r e the r e f or m a t t e d i nf

or m a t i on t o a bi l l i ng a ge nt , w hi c h pr ovi de d the i nf or m a t i on t o l oc a l t e l e phone c om pa ni e s f or bi l l i ng. W he n c us t om e r s c om pl a i ne d t o A c c ut e l a nd the F e de r a l C om m uni c a t i on C om m i ss i on (“ F C C ”) , A cc ut el fa l se l y t ol d t he cust om er s thatthe change i n ser vi ce w a s i n a d v e r t e n t , a n d A c c u t e l p r o v i d e d f a l s e r e c o r d s t o th e FCC. A f t e ra j ur y f

ound S or e i de gui l ty on a l l c ount s , the di s tr i c tc our te m pa ne l e d a se nt enci ng j ury. T he se nt enci ng j ury r eturned a speci al verdi ctform , fi nd i ng that 3whether

Soreide used “ mass marke ting” ; (5) whe ther heused “sophisticate d means” ; (6) the amount of “taxloss”; (7) whe ther Soreidefailed to report or properly identify the sourceof income excee ding $10,000; ( 8) whe ther Soreidewas a n “org anizer,” “ leader,” “ manag er”or “super visor”; and ( 9) whe ther Soreide ’s criminal activities wereotherwise e x tensive. 4 the a c tua l l os s a m ount e d t o m or e tha n $7 m i l l i on, butl e s s tha n $20 m i l l i on; the i nt e nde d l os s a m ount e d t o m or e tha n $20 m i l l i on on c ount s 1- 27 a nd m or e tha n $7 m i l l i on , bu tl es s than $ 20 m i l l i on on coun t s 28-66 ; m ore than fi fty vi ct i m s w er e i nv ol ved; S orei de used m as s- m ar ket i ng and sop hi st i ca t ed m ea ns; the t ax l oss w as m ore than $ 40 0, 00 0, bu tl es s than $ 1 m i l l i on ; S orei de fa i l ed t o i dent i fy the source of i ncom e e xcee di ng $1 0, 00 0 from cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty on h i s t ax re turn; he w as an o r g a n iz e ro rle a d e r ; a n d th e c r im in a l a c tiv itie s w e r e o th e r w is e e x te n s iv e . T h e r e a f te r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d S o r e id e b a s e d o n a n o f f e n s e le v e l o f

2 3 w ith enhancem ent s of 9 po i nt s bas ed on an am ou ntof fund s l aund er ed by S orei de that w a s m or e tha n $7 m i l l i on, butl e s s tha n $20 m i l l i on, a nd 4 poi nt s ba s e d on S orei de’ s r ol e a s a n o rgani ze r or l ea der. A . C onvi c t i on S o r e id e f ir s t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly d e n ie d h is m o tio n to s e ve rthe c ons pi r a c y a nd f r a ud c ha r ge s ( c ount s 1- 27) be c a us e the de ni a l of s e v e r a n c e d e p r iv e d h im o f th e r ig h t to te s tif

y o n s o m e c h a r g e s , b u t n o t o th e r s . “[ T ]o e s ta b lis h th a t th e jo in d e ro f c h a r g e s k e p t h im f

r o m te s tif

y in g , [ a d e f

e n d a n t] m ustshow thatthe charges w er e di st i ncti n t i m e, pl ac e, and evi dence, thatthereRul e8( a) s tate s: 4 The indictment or infor

mation may

charg e a de fenda

nt in separa

te counts with 2 or more of

fense s if the offenses cha

rg ed – whether fe lonies or misdemeanor s or both – areof the sameor similar cha rac ter, or a

re ba sed on the sameact or transac tion, or areconnec ted with or constitute par ts of a common sche me or plan. Fe d. R. Crim. P . 8(a) . 5 w a s ‘ i m por t a nt ’ e vi de nc e tha the m i ghtha ve of f e r e d on one s e tof

c ha r ge s but coul d n ot , and t hathe had a ‘ strong need’ no tt o t es t i fy on the ot her c ou nt s. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e r s h, 297 F . 3d 1233, 1243 n. 15 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( c i t a t i on om i t t e d) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F or r e s t , 623 F . 2d 1107, 1115 ( 5th C i r . 1980) (hol di ng that“ se vera nce i s notm andat ory s i m pl y bec ause a def endanti nd i ca t es thathe w i shes t o t es t i fy on som e c ou nt s butno ton ot hers ”) ). B ec ause S orei de has fa i l ed t o setforth t he re qu i si t e s ho w i ng for s ever ance , the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n d enyi ng the m ot i on t o sever . Id. ; se e a l so F ed. R . C ri m . P . 8(a) ; U ni t ed S t at es 4 v. D om i ng uez, 22 6 F . 3d 12 35 , 12 39 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ). B . S ent ence S orei de m akes four ar gu m ent s c on ce rni ng hi s s ent ence : (1) the di stri ctcourt com m i t t ed st atut ory a nd const i tut i on al error pursuantt o U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 543 U . S . 220 ( 2005) ; ( 2) the di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o m a ke s pe c i f

i c f a c tua l f i ndi ngs reg ard i n g (a) § 1 B 1 . 2 (d ) o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es, w h i ch req u i res a det er m i nat i on of w hether the vari ou s obj ec t s of a m ul t i -obj ec tconspi ra cy w er eWe h avehe ld t hat: 5 Therearetwo harmless e rror standards. O ne of the m applies to Booker constitutional errors, theother to B ooker statutory errors. . . . [C] onstitut ional e rror s areha

rm le ss whe retheg ov e rnme nt c an s ho w, be yon d a re a so na bledo ub t, that the er ror did not contribute to the de fenda nt’s ultimate sentence. . . . Booker statut or y e rror s, on

theoth e r h and , a

resu bje c t to thele ss d e mandingte st that is a pp lic a bleto n on -c on stitution a l e rror s. . . . A“ no n- c on sti tution a l e rror is harmless if, view ing theproce eding s in their entirety , a cour t determines that the error did not aff

ect the [sentenc e], ‘or had but ve ry slight ef fec t.’ I f one c an say ‘with fair assura nce . . . that the [sentence] was not substantially swayed by

the error,’ the [sentenc e] is due to be aff irmed even though there w as er ror.” United States v. Mathenia, 409 F .3d 1289, 1291-92 (11th Cir. 2005) (c itations omi tted). 6 prov en beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt , and (b) w hether hi s c o-conspi ra t or’ s c on du ct w as re as on abl y f

ores ee abl e t o S orei de; (3) the di stri ctcourti m prop er l y e nh ance d hi s s ent ence base d u po n fac t s notal l eged i n t he i nd i ctm ent ; and (4) t he di stri ct courtfa i l ed t o m ake the neces sa ry fa ctual fi nd i ng s und er18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(c) . S orei de’ s f

i rs tar gu m enti s thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i t t ed const i tut i on al a nd s t a tut or y B ooke re r r orby a ppl y i ng the gui de l i ne s i n a m a nda t or y f a s hi on, a nd by e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on a n a m ountof m one y l a unde r e d be tw e e n $7 m i l l i o n t o $ 2 0 m i l l i o n an d b ased o n h i s ro l e as an o rg an i zer o r l ead er. B ecau se S o rei d e m ad e a t i m el y o b j ect i o n , w e rev i ew h i s B o o k er cl ai m u n d er a h arm l ess error s t andard. U ni t ed S t at es v. S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 31 n. 7 (11 th C i r. 5 20 05 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. P az , 40 5 F . 3d 94 6, 94 8-49 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). W e f i nd any c on st i tut i on al B oo ker e rr or com m i t t ed by the di stri ctcourt h a r m le s s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta te d th a t a lth o u g h th e ju r y ’s s p e c ia l v e r d ic t “w o u ld7

h av e n o im p ac t u p o n th e [ c]o u rt’s se n ten cin g d ec isio n ,” itw o u ld im p ac t th e c o u rt’s de c i s i on i f

“ the S upr e m e C our tl a t e rde t e r m i ne [ d] tha tB l a ke l y [ v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 29 6 (20 04 )] ext ends t o federa l se nt enci ng . ” A s m ent i on ed abov e, the spec i al v e r d ic t in d ic a te d th a t S o r e id e w a s r e s p o n s ib le f o r$ 7 m illio n to $ 2 0 m illio n in ac tual l oss a nd m ore than $ 20 m i l l i on i n i nt ended l oss, and t hathe part i ci pat ed as a n or ga ni z e rorl e a de r . B e c a us e the s e j ur y f i ndi ngs w e r e i de nt i c a l t o thos e m a de by the s e nt e nc i ng j udge a nd be c a us e the y w oul d be a ppl i e d upon r e s e nt e nc i ng, a ny c ons t i tut i ona l e r r orw a s ha r m l e s s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L e e , 427 F . 3d 881, 892 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng tha tB ooke rc ons t i tut i ona l e r r orw a s ha r m l e s s be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubtbe c a us e on r e m a nd the di s tr i c tc our tw oul d ha ve gi ve n de f e nda nt th e s a m e s e n te n c e ) . A s f orS or e i de ’ s c l a i m of

s t a tut or y B ooke re r r or , w e r e m a nd f or r e s e nt e nc i ng. S t a tut or y B ooke re r r ora r i s e s “ w he n the di s tr i c tc our tm i s a ppl i e s the G ui de l i ne s by c ons i de r i ng the m a s bi ndi ng a s oppos e d t o a dvi s or y . ” S he l t on, 400 F . 3d a t1330- 31. B e c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tc ons i de r e d the gui de l i ne s t o be m andat ory, i tcom m i t t ed st atut ory B oo ker e rr or. T he go vernm entbear s the bu rden of s how i ng tha tthe s t a tut or y e r r orw a s ha r m l e s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a the ni a , 409 F . 3d 12 89 , 12 92 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). T he go vernm entar gu es thatthe er ror w as ha r m l e s s be c a us e the s e nt e nc i ng j udge c ons i de r e d S or e i de ’ s l a vi s h l i f e s ty l e , the8

e f f e c ton the vi c t i m s , a nd the e xt e ntof puni s hm e nta nd de t e r r e nc e s t e m m i ng f r om a s ent ence i n t he m i dd l e of the gu i del i nes r ange. W e have previ ou sl y rul ed thata s ent ence i n t he m i dd l e of the gu i del i nes r a nge i s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o pr ove ha r m l e s s e r r or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G l ove r , 431 F . 3d 744, 749- 750 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng tha t“ the s e nt e nc e a l one t e l l s us nothi ng abou tw hether the di stri ct[c ou rt ] w ou l d h ave i m po se d a l es se r s ent ence ”) . R ather, the gove r nm e ntm us ts e tf or th “ s om e thi ng i n the r e c or d [ t o] s ugge s t [ ] tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t w o u ld h a v e im p o s e d th e s a m e o ra g r e a te rs e n te n c e .” I d . a t 7 5 0 . W ha ts e nt e nc e the di s tr i c tc our tw oul d ha ve i m pos e d ha d i tc ons i de r e d the gu i del i nes a dv i sory , ho w ever , i s unk no w n. A s the go vernm entst at es i n i t s bri ef ,

“ the courtdecl i ned t o say ho w i tw ou l d h ave e xerc i se d d i sc re t i on t o sent ence de f e nda ntw i thoutgui de l i ne s . ” M or e ove r , the c om m e nt s of the s e nt e nc i ng j udge he r e tha t“ the de f

e nda nta nd hi s f

a m i l y e nj oy e d a l a vi s h l i f e s ty l e a tthe e xpe ns e of m a ny uns us pe c t i ng vi c t i m s ” a nd tha t“ a s e nt e nc e i n the m i ddl e r a nge of the G ui de l i ne s w oul d s uf

f i c i e nt l y puni s h the de f

e nda nta nd de t e rothe r s f r om com m i t t i ng l i ke or si m i l arcr i m es ” a re i nsuffi ci entt o say w i th fai r a ss urance that the st atut ory B oo ker e rr or w as harm l es s. Id. at74 9-50 (hol di ng st atut ory B oo ker e r r orw a s notha r m l e s s w he r e di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d s e nt e nc e i n m i ddl e of gu i del i nes r ange and t here w er e no st at em ent s i n t he re cord ref l ec t i ng thatthe court9

w ou l d h ave i m po se d t he sa m e or gre at erse nt ence un der a dv i sory gu i del i nes) ; se e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a i n, 433 F . 3d 1345, 1348- 49 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c onc l udi ng th a t c o n s titu tio n a l e r r o rw a s n o t h a r m le s s b e c a u s e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t s ta te th a t it w oul d ha ve i m pos e d the s a m e orhi ghe rs e nt e nc e i f i tha d the di s c r e t i on t o do s o, e ve n though i ts e nt e nc e d de f e nda ntt o the “ hi gh e nd” the gui de l i ne s r a nge a nd s t a t e d tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s “ a ppr opr i a t e ” ) ; c f . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a l l e gos - A gue r o, 40 9 F . 3d 12 74 , 12 77 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( ho l di ng st atut ory e rr or harm l es s w here di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d the hi ghe s ta va i l a bl e s e nt e nc e unde rgui de l i ne s r a nge a nd c o n s id e r e d s e n te n c in g to th e s ta tu to r y m a x im u m ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . M e jia - G io v a n i, 41 6 F . 3d 13 23 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( fi nd i ng thatdi stri ctcourt ’ s e xp re ss st at em ent s that the de f e nda ntm i ghtnotbe ne f

i tunde ra n a dvi s or y s y s t e m w i th the c our t ’ s w a r ni ng thatdefe nd antw as atri sk for a n u pw ar d d epar ture m ade s t atut ory e rr or harm l es s) . S orei de nextar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o m ake s peci fi c f ac tual f i ndi ngs w i th r e ga r d t o the na tur e a nd s c ope of S or e i de ’ s r e l e va ntc onduc ti n the conspi ra cy . B ec ause w e f i nd thatthere w as am pl e e vi dence t o sup po rtthe di stri ct c our t ’ s de s c r i pt i on a nd de t e r m i na t i on a s t o S or e i de ’ s pot e nt i a l r ol e , w e f i nd tha tthe di stri ctcourtdi d n oti m prop er l y f ai l t o m ake s peci fi c f

ac tual fi nd i ng s. S ee U ni t ed S t a t e s v. P e tr i e , 302 F . 3d 1280, 1290 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng tha ta “ s e nt e nc i ng co u rt’s fa il u re to m ak e in d iv id u alized fin d in g s r eg ar d in g th e s co p e o f d ef en d an t’ s10

ac ti v ity is n o t g ro u n d s f o r v ac atin g a s en ten ce if th e r ec o rd su p p o rt[e d ] th e c o u rt’s de t e r m i na t i on w i th r e s pe c tt o the of f e ns e c onduc t , i nc l udi ng the i m put a t i on of othe r s ’ unl a w f

ul a c t s t o the de f

e nda nt ” ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a t the w s , 168 F . 3d 12 34 , 12 47 (11t h C i r. 19 99 )) ). W e a l so fi nd no m er i tt o S orei de’ s c l ai m thatthe j ud ge i m prop er l y e nh ance d hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on f

a c t s nota l l e ge d i n the i ndi c t m e nt . S pe c i f i c a l l y , S or e i de cl ai m s thatthe di stri ctcourtam ended t he i nd i ctm entby subm i t t i ng the spec i al v e r d ic t f o r m to th e ju r y , a s k in g w h e th e rS o r e id e w a s a n o r g a n iz e ro rle a d e r . S or e i de f ur the rc l a i m s tha tbe c a us e f a c t s c onc e r ni ng hi s r ol e a s a n or ga ni z e ror l ea der w er e notal l eged i n t he i nd i ctm ent , w hether he w as an organi ze r or l ea der s houl d notha ve be e n s ubm i t t e d t o the j ur y . B e c a us e the j ur y c onc l ude d be y ond a re as on abl e dou btthatS orei de w as an organi ze r or l ea der, and b ec ause S orei de w as s e nt e nc e d t o 236 m onths i m pr i s onm e nt , w hi c h w a s be l ow the s t a tut or y m a xi m um of 20 y e a r s i m pr i s onm e nt , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notunc ons t i tut i ona l l y a m e nd the i ndi c t m e ntby e nha nc i ng S or e i de ’ s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on hi s r ol e a s a n or ga ni z e ror l ea der. A s t o S orei de’ s a rgum entthatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o m ake the neces sa ry f i ndi ngs unde r18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , w e ha ve he l d tha ta s e nt e nc i ng c our ti s not o b lig a te d to s p e c if

ic a lly a d d r e s s a n d a n a ly z e o n th e r e c o r d e v e r y f a c to rs e t f

o r th in11

§ 3553( a ) . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ot t , 426 F . 3d 1324, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng tha t“ nothi ng i n B ooke rore l s e w he r e r e qui r e s the di s tr i c tc our tt o s t a t e on the reco rd th ati th as ex p l i ci t l y co n si d ered each o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors o r t o d i scu ss e a c h o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s ” ) . W e f

in d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a d e q u a te ly s ta te d its re as on s f or i m po si ng a s ent ence of 23 6 m on ths i m pri sonm ent , as the court s pe c i f i c a l l y not e d s e ve r a l § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , i nc l udi ng “ the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of

the of f e ns e ” a nd “ the ne e d f

orthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d” t o “ pr ovi de ju s t p u n is h m e n t” a n d “a f f o r d a d e q u a te d e te r r e n c e .” A cc ordi ng l y, w e AF F I RM th e c o n v ic tio n , VA C A TE the s e nt e nc e , a nd RE MAND f

orr e s e nt e nc i ng.