2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-29-2002

USA v. Laine

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 02-1274

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Laine" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 677.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/677
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 No. 02-1274 

 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

 EILEEN LAINE, 

 Appellant 

 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the District of New Jersey 

 (D.C. Crim. No. 98-00707) 

 Honorable William G. Bassler, District Judge 

 

 

 Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 October 18, 2002 

 

 BEFORE: ROTH and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges, 

 and WARD, District Judge* 

 (Filed October 29, 2002) 

 

 OPINION OF THE COURT 

 

 

*Honorable Robert J. Ward, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 

 

 

GREENBERG, Circuit Judge. 

 This matter comes on before this court on Eileen Laine’s appeal from the 

sentencing component of a judgment of conviction and sentence entered on January 18, 

2002. The United States Attorney filed an information against Laine charging her in five 

counts as follows: count 1, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud in violation of 18 

U.S.C. 371; count 2, conspiracy to commit tax offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371; 

count 3, tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201; count 4, money laundering in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and 2; count 5, money laundering in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and 2. Inasmuch as Laine cooperated with the 

government the United States Attorney filed a motion for a downward departure pursuant 

to U.S.S.G. 5K1.1. The district court calculated her guideline range as 78 to 97 months 

predicated on a total offense level of 28 and a criminal history category of I but granted 

the government’s motion and departed downward 9 levels to a total offense level of 19 

which established her sentencing range as 30 to 37 months. The court then sentenced 

Laine to five concurrent 30-month custodial terms to be followed by five concurrent 

three-year terms of supervised release. Laine appeals, asserting that the district court 

made two errors. First, she contends that the court "erred in attributing the entire loss 
amount to [her] without first examining the scope of her agreement to participate in the 

fraud and whether the actions of the others were reasonably foreseeable in light of that 

agreement." Second, she argues that the "court erred in denying [her] a minor role 

adjustment based on her integral role in the conspiracy rather than her relative 

culpability." We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3742. 

 The parties appear to be in some disagreement with respect to the appropriate 

standard of review to apply here. Laine asserts that we are concerned with 

"interpretation and application of the sentencing guidelines" and the "proper analysis 

under the sentencing guidelines" and thus our review is de novo, citing United States v. 

Isaza-Zapata, 148 F.3d 236, 237 (3d Cir. 1998), and United States v. Georgiadis, 933 

F.2d 1219, 1222 (3d Cir. 1991). While the government does not quarrel with Laine’s 

statement of the law, it believes that there is a factual as well as a legal component in the 

guidelines calculations and that we review the factual component on a clear error basis, 

citing Isaza-Zapata, 148 F.3d at 237, and United States v. Fuentes, 954 F.2d 151, 152-53 

(3d Cir. 1992). We are of the view that there are to a degree factual disputes here and 

thus we exercise both deferential and plenary review on this appeal. 

 We are satisfied that the district court’s conclusions as to the amount of the loss 

attributed to Laine were fully justified. The record supports the court’s finding that 

Laine "was personally involved in almost every aspect of the securities fraud." App. at 

114. In this regard, the district court relied on the presentence report which it 

characterized as being "very thorough." Id. We, too, have examined the presentence 

report and find it to be exceptionally comprehensive. We also reject Laine’s contention 

that she was entitled to a minor role adjustment. In this regard we recognize that Laine’s 

share of the profits of the conspiracy was less than that of other conspirators. This 

circumstance, however, does not in itself make her role "minor." See United States v. 

Moore, 991 F.2d 409, 413-14 (7th Cir. 1993). 

 The judgment of conviction and sentence entered January 18, 2002, will be 

affirmed. 

 /s/ Morton I. Greenberg 

 Circuit Judge 

DATED: October 29, 2002