## 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. 12

- 1499 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. A NTH O NY B ANA S, D ef endant-Appellant.

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 . 09 C R 976-2

—RubenC astil lo, Judge
.
A RGUED J AN UA RY 25, 2013

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 14, 2013

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd B AU ER an d K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . A n thony Banas co m m i tte d extra

ordinar y c ri m es

— he b i l k e d i nv e s t o r s o ut o f mor e than $70, 000, 000 a n d l i ned his o w n pocke ts w i th the heal th car e s avi ngs o fpeopl e who tr usted hi m . A nthony Banas al so showed extr aordi naryco ntri ti on

— h e a d m itt ed h is g ui l t, a cc epted res po ns ibi l i tyf o r hi s ac ti o ns , a nd he has work ed hard to se c u re so m e degr ee ofr est i tuti on2 N o. 12

- 1499 f orhi s v i cti m s. Fa ced w i th th e an ci ent t ensi on be tw een j us t i c e a nd mer c y, the di s t r i c t j ud g e s e nt e nc e d Ba na s t o 16 0 m o nths o f i m pr i so nm en t. Tha t was a si g ni fi ca nt sente nce, but one w el lbel ow the Guidel i nes r ange. Banas appeal ed, chal l engi ng hi s s entence o n both p ro cedu ra land subst anti ve gr ounds. Because Banas’ s s entence wa s r e a s o n ab l e a n d fr e e o fp r o c e d u r a le r r o r, w e a ffi r m.

I. B ACK GR OUN D The f a c t s o f th i s c a s e , wh i c h we d r a w fr o m t he Pres entence Invest i gat i on Repor t ( “PSR”) , Banas’ s pl ea agr eem ent, and the ple a a gr ee m ent o fhi s co - defe nd ant, ar e l ar gel y undis pu ted. The st or y b egins i n 200 3, w hen C on gr es s c re at ed H e a lth Sa vin gs A c c ou n ts
. See M ed icare Pres cri pti on Drug, I m prove m ent, and M oder ni zati on A ct o f20 03, Pub. L. 108- 173, § 1201 , 117 St at. 2066 , 24 69- 79 (20 03 ). Th es e a c c ou n ts h elp p eo p le w ith h igh

- d e d u c tib le he a l th p l a n s s a v e f o r h e a l th c a r e c o s t s b y p r o v i d i ng t ax pr e fe r r e d t r e a t men tf o r mo ne y s a v e d fo r futur e me dica l ex p en se s. See 26 U. S

. C. § 2 23

. In 2004 , de fen dan t Antho ny Ba na s, a l o ngwi thJ er emy Bl ac kburn a nd Vi kr a m Ka s hy a p, s t a r t e d a c o mpa nyc a l l e d C a no py F i na nc i al, Inc . The c o m pan y c r ea te d a s ui te o fs o ftw are products that a l l owed sa ver s t o m an ag e th ei r H eal th Savings A ccou nt s online. B lackbu rn serve d as Ca nop y’s presi dent, K ashya p as i ts CE O, and Banas as i ts Ch i ef T ech nology O fficer. Can o py ’ s i nno va tiv e so ftwa r e won pr ai se thr o ug ho ut the ind ustr y. Busi ness gr ew , a nd , by20 09, Canopy had ove r a hundred em p loyees

. I ts succes s a l so att ra ctedN o. 12

- 1499 3
the a t t e nt i o n o fv e ntur e c a pi t a la nd p r i v a t e e qu i t yf i rm s. Be f o r e de c i di ng t o i nv e s t, the s e fi r ms r e qu i r ed Cano py to turn o vervari ous fi nanci aldocum ents. Canopy pro

vi ded them , i ncl ud i ng fi nanci alst ate m en ts audite d by K PM G, a r espect ed i nter nati onalacc ounti ng fi rm . Sa tisfi ed that Cano py w as a s ol i d i nvest m ent, a gr oup cal l ed Spectrum EquityInv estor s bo ught $6 2, 400, 000 i n prefer re d sto ck. Invest or s at otherfi rm s bo ught ano ther $12, 500, 000 i n prefer re d sto ck. The r e was o nl y o ne problem: Ca no py ha d c o o k ed th e boo ks. Fo r sta rt er s, ther e nev erwas a KPM G aud i t. I nstea d, Blac kburn conco cted fi nanci alst ate m ents o ut o f thi n ai r an d put them o n f ake KP M G le tte rhea d. These counter fei ts sugge ste d

— fals ely

— th at Cano py ’ s r ev enue exceeded i ts ex p en se s. Banas pl aye d a part, to o; he r evi ew ed the p h on y pap er s t o m ake sur e they l oo ked l i ke re alKP M G d ocum ents. Banas a l so sent em ai l s, dr a ft e d b y Bl a c kb urn, that f a l s e l y s ug g e s t e d C a no py w as i n conta ct with K PM G aud i tor s. Th e t wo me n t o o ko the r s t eps to fur the r the i r fr a ud

. Banas r ecr uit ed a Canopy e m plo ye e to pose as a cu stom er on calls w ith in v e s tors. B an as an d Blackbu rn used thi s f a k e “ c us t o mer ” t o funne lmo r e f a l s e i nfo rm ati o n t o S pec trum . Bl ackb ur n a l so c o nc o ct ed f ak e ba nk st at em en ts in C an op y’s n a m e, an d B an as kn ow in gly f o r wa r d e d th e s e s t a t e me n t s o n t o S p e c t r u m. W or se , B lac kb u rn an d B an as st ar te d ra id in g t h eir cl i ents’ H eal th S avi ngs Accounts. Giv en the natur e o fi ts b u sin es s, C an op y h ad a c c es s t o m illion s o f d olla rs in cl i ent fund s. Eventual l y, the al l ure ofthatcas h prov ed to o4 N o. 12

- 1499 gr eat, and Banas and Bla c kburn sta rt ed usi ng i t t o pay C a n o p y ’ s o p e r a t i n g e x p e n s e s a n d t o fe a th e r th e i r o wn nests
. A t th e s am e t i m e, theym ade fra ud ule nt m i sr epresenta ti ons to i nd uce thei r cl i ents to kee p the m oney com i ng. B an as, f ori nstance , f al sel y r epres ented t o a c or p or at e c u st om er (w h o re p re se n t ed rou gh ly 7 00 ind ivi dualc l i en ts ) tha t th e cl i en ts ’ de po si ts wer e ea r ni ng 4. 25% i nter est
. In f act, theywere earni ng f arl ess . By the ti m e B anas and Blackburn were sto pp ed, they ha d m i sa ppr opr i at ed m o r e th an$ 18 , 00 0, 00 0 i n c l i en t funds

. Bl ac kburn s pen t r o ug hl y $ 6, 00 0, 000 inc l i en t fund s o n hom e r enova ti ons, f ancy w atc h es , a fl eeto f lu x u ry ca r s , an d a lea se on a c or p or at e jet. B an as st ole l ess

— som ew here i n th e area of$7 00, 000

—b u t h e s till l i ved the hi g h l i fe . He r e nt e d a man s i o n i n Ca l i f o r ni a f or $20, 000 a m on th , d ro ve a Lam bor ghi ni, and thr ew l avi sh parti es. Of the $ 700, 000 i n cl i ent m oneythathe s tol e, Banas i nvest ed abo ut $3 00, 000 i n a ni gh tcl ub and another $4 00, 000 f orhi s o w n “per sonalexpenditures . ” ( Pl ea A gr eem ent a t 8

. ) The peopl e he st ol e fro m were l ess fo r tu na te
. Vi ct i m s who l o stthe i r he al ths av i ng s i ncl ud ed re ti re es, working f am i lies , and a b re astcance r pat i e nt who “ de s pe r a t e l y ne e de d” the l o s t mon e y t o pay for su rg er y a n d ch em ot h er ap y. (P SR at6-8 .) I n ear l y 2 009, Canopy’ s bo ar d ofdi re cto rs st ar ted to g ets us pic i o us a nd o r der ed ani nt erna li nv es ti g at i o n. The FBIal so goti nvol ved afteran insurance provi der noti ced thatCanop y’s custo m er s were bounci ng chec ks for heal th car e s er vi ces. W hen the FBI co nfr onte d Banas on Decem ber 20, 2009 , he gave a full confess i on. Once the fra ud cam e t o l i ght, Canopy went bankr up t.N o. 12

- 1499 5 Fol l owing hi s co nfe ssi on , Banas co nsented t o seve ra l civil j udg m en ts a g ains t hi m a nd c o o per at ed wi ththe FBI, I RS, S EC , and Canopy’s bank ruptcy tr ustee
. H e a l so sc ale d ba c k h is lifes ty le a n d tu rn ed ov e r a lm os t a ll of his ass e t s a s r e s t i t ut i o n t o hi s v i c t i ms. On M a r c h 1 , 20 10, the gov er nm ent re turned an i nfo rm ati on aga i n st Banas f ortwo co unts o f w i re fra ud under 18 U

. S. C. § 1 343. Banas w ai ved i nd i ctm ent, and on Se p te m ber8, 20 10, ple d gui l ty to one count o fwire fr aud. Blac kburn al so pl ed g uilty. On J an ua r y 2 4, 2 01 2, the di st r i ctc o ur t se ntence d Blackburn t o 180 m onths ofi m pri sonm ent. Bl ac kburn wi l lno t se r ve tha t se nt en ce; he was f o und dea d the da y b efo r e he was t o r epo r t to pr i so n. Banas appeare d bef or e the sa m e di str i ct j ud ge for se nt en cinga few w eeks la te r . The pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce c al cul ate d Banas’s Guidel i nes s entencing r ange at 188- 235 m onths, and the gov er nm ent a ske d fo r a 1 80- m onth se nt en ce . Ba na s, o n the o th erha nd, a rgue d thathi s se ntence sho uld be “s i gni fi cantl y l ess than M r. Bl ackb urn’ s” 180- m onth s entence
. ( Se ntenci ng Tr. at24

. ) U l ti m ate l y, th e d i s t r i c tj u d g e se nt e n c e d B a n a s t o 1 6 0 mo n th s o fi mpr i so nm en t. Ba na s no w appea l s, a r g ui ngtha t th i s se ntence w as both proc edural l y i m properand subst anti ve ly unreas onabl e. Fo r the r eas ons that f ol l ow, w e di sag re e.

II. A NA LYSIS A. Proc e dural Er r or Dist ri ct j ud ges , not appell ate j ud ges, ar e bestp os itio n ed to d et er m in e c rim in al s en t e n c es . See U nited Sta tes6 N o. 12

- 1499

v. G am m icchia , 49 8 F

. 3d 467, 469 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)

. A s a re sul t, we g e ne r a l l y de fe r t o a s e nt e nc i ngc o ur t ’ s j udgm en t a n d rev iew t h e su b st an c e of c rim in al s en te n c es on ly for ab u se of d isc re tio n . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Le i skunas , 65 6 F. 3d 732, 73 6- 37 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)

. But w henever“a d istr i ct j u d ge is re q u ire d to m ak e a d isc re tio n ar y ru lin g t h at is subj ect to appell ate r evi ew , we have t o sat i sfy o urse l ves, bef or e we can c on c lu de that the j ud ge did notabuse hi s di scr eti on, thathe e xerci sed hi s di scr etion , that i s, t h a t h e c on sid er ed th e fa c to rs rele va n t t o th at ex er c ise .” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob e r t s on , 662 F.3d 871, 880 (7th C ir. 2011). I n oth er w ord s, w e w il l n ot d efer to a sen ten cing cou rt un tilw e are sa t is fi ed , un d er deno vo r ev i ew, tha t th e c ou rtfollow ed p ro p er se n te n c in g p ro c ed u re . U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 696 F.3d 695 , 699 (7th C ir. 2012). T ha t proc ed ure begins w ith calcu latin g the ad visory ra n ge u n d er t h e Se n te n c in g G u id elin es . Id . at 7 00 . Follow ing th at, “th e d efend an t m us t be gi ven th e opp ortun ity t o bring to the cour t’ s a tte nti on a ny f acto rs under [ 18 U

. S. C.] § 3553 ( a) that m i ght w ar ra nt a sentence bel ow the Gu i del i ne s ra n ge. ” Id. The se ntenci ng j ud ge i s then re quir ed to consi der these sta tutory fact or s. Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Wi l l i a ms , 425 F.3d 478 , 480 (7th C ir. 2005). That sa i d, “the j ud ge need not dis c u ss and m ake fi nd i ngs a s to e ach o fthes e f acto rs , ” i d. , and “we re gula rl y a ffi rm se ntences wh er e th e d istr i ct j ud ge does not expli ci tl y m enti on each m i ti gat i on ar gum ent rai sed by the d efendant, ” Unit e d S t at e s v. Paige, 61 1 F

. 3d 397, 39 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2010)

. Ins te ad, i t “i s en o ug h tha t th e r ec o r d c o nfi rm s tha t th e j udg e ha s g i ve n mea ni ng ful cons id erati on t o the s ecti on 3 553( a) f acto rs . ” Wi l l i a ms , 425 F. 3d at 480.N o. 12

- 1499 7

B an as raises ad d ition al p ro ced u ral ar g u m en ts in his rep ly 1 b rief. B e c a u se B an as d id no t raise the se arg u m en ts in his o p e n i n g b r i e f, th e y a r e f o r fe i t e d , a n d we wi l l n o ta d d r e s s th e m. S ee Un i te d S tat es v. C arte r, 69 5 F .3d 69 0 , 70 1 n .6 (7 th C ir . 20 1 2 ). B an as’s op en ing brief con ten d s tha t the district cou rt m ade a proce du ra l m i sta ke by f ai l i ng to co nsi der tw o of hi s a rgum ents i n m itig ati on. Banas a cknowle dges that 1 the di str i ct c ourt“r efer enced” h is “ m ai n ar gum ents” that (1) Blac kburn m ani pu l ate d hi m ; and ( 2) Banas fu lly c oo p er at e d w ith th e g ov er n m en t. (A p p ella n t’s B r. at12 .) Bu t, Ba na s c o nt i nu es, th e di s t r i c tj ud g e di d n o t“ pr o v i de an y in sig h t in to h ow th os e it em s w er e c on sid er ed in cal cul ating Banas’[ s] se ntence. ” ( Id. ) Thu s, Ba na s co nc lu d es , th e d ist ric t c ou rt“p ro vid ed n o re as on ed ba sis f orthe chose n sent ence. ” ( Id. ) W e di s a g r e e . Th e di s t r i c t j ud g e s pe c i fi c a l l y s t a t e d t hat he had w ei ghed “ all ofthe 3553 f acto rs ” bo th i n m i ti gation an d i n agg ravation

. ( Sen ten cing T r. at 2 9 .) M oreover, i t i s c l e a r fr o m the f a c e o f the r e c o r d tha t the j ud ge gave “m eani ngful c onsider ati on, ” Wi l l i a ms , 42 5 F

. 3d at 48 0, to b o tho fBa na s’ s k eya r g um en ts
. Re g ar di ng Banas’ s m ani pu l ati on a rgum ent, the dist ri ct j ud ge had thi s t o say : Ico uld s ee how ther e was so m e m ani pu l ati on by M r. B lac kbu rn of M r. Ba na s and a l ong -term fri endship. M r. Bl ackb urn i s ce rt ai nl y a char acte r i n an d o f hi m se l f, as sh o wn by no t o nl y th e fi na nc ial fra u d an d h is a b i l i t y t o s ell h im se lf an d h is c o mp a n y b u ta l s o i n h i s p e r s o n a ll i fe s t y l e . S o me w ou ld refe r to M r. B lac kb u rn as a b ad se ed

.8 N o. 12

- 1499 Bu t, Mr

. Ba na s , wh e n y o u r uni nt o a bad s e e d, you ar e ul ti m ate l y l eft with a c hoi ce. Y ou ei ther hel p the ba d see d succeed o r you w al k a w ay fro m th e w h ole th in g. O r th e b es t c h o ice of all is to s to p the b ad se ed. And the r e i s no do ubt, y o ur att or ney M r. Roadm an poi n ts out, thatyo u co ul d a nd s ho ul d ha ve s to pped th is fr au d. And you did not

. A nd Iwish y ou had bec ause that w ou ld m ake sen ten cing you so m uc h eas ier. (Senten cing T r. at 28.) A nd r ega rdi ng Banas’ s co oper ati on, the dist ri ct j ud ge s t a t e d: Icer tainl y c re dityo ur co oper ati on. Your eff or ts w i th the Trust ee [ app ointed to re cove r ass ets f or the v i cti m s o ft h e fr aud] a re ve ryco m m endabl e. T h e le tt er s t h at h av e b ee n w rit te n o n y ou r b eh alf I th ink are som ew ha t d ifferent than th e letters th at have been

— wer e wri tt enf o r M r . Bl ac kburn. Ithi nkthe r e i s m uchmor e ch ar ac te r t o y o u. And i n part i cul arIwil lte l lyo u the l ett er s wri tte n by yo u r parents ar e hea rtbre aking. I t i s hea rt
bre aking f ora son to have to have l ett er s l i ke that fro m hi s par ents. Bu t I wi l l t e l l y o u , j u s t a s h e a r tb r e a k i n g a r e th e letters fr o m v ictim s in this case w ho are se ar c h in g for th os e fu n d s t o t ak e c ar e o f th eir m edi calneeds. ( Id . at 2 8-2 9.)N o. 12

- 1499 9 T h e r e i s l i t t l e f o r u s t o a d d. Th e r e c o r d c l e a r l y s h o ws th at th e d istri ct j ud ge m ean ingfully con side red Ba na s’s argu m en ts. A s a result, th ere w as no proc ed ura l error. S e eWi l l i a ms , 42 5 F

. 3d at 480.

B. Su b s t ant i veEr r or B anas al so ar gues that hi s s entence was substa nti ve ly unreas onabl e be c ause i t ( 1) f ai l ed to acc ount f or va riou s m itig at in g fa c to rs ; an d ( 2) is d isp ro p or tio n at ely lon g c om p ar ed to B lac kb u rn ’s s en te n c e. O u r re vie w is d eferential, and w e w il l reverse o n ly i f th e d istri ct cou rt ab u se d its d isc re tio n . Uni t e d S t at e s v . M at t he ws , 70 1 F

. 3d 11 99 , 1 20 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 2)

. W he re, a s h er e, the s en te n c e is be low th e G u id elin es ran ge , w e p re su m e t h a t it i s r eas onabl e. U nited St at e s v. Kl ug, 67 0 F

. 3d 797, 80 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)

. M or eov er, wh er e, as here , the dist ri ct c o u r t“ h a s c o r r e c t l y c a l c u l a t e d a Gui d e l i n e s r a n g e , we ass um e that s i gn ifi cant c onsi derat i on has bee n gi ven t o av oid in g u n w ar ra n te d d isp ar itie s b et w ee n se n te n c es .” U ni t e d S t at e s v. St at ham , 581 F.3d 548 , 556 (7th C ir . 2009). T h is a ss u m p tio n als o a p p lies “w ith ad d ed forc e” in t h is case bec ause Banas does not challen ge “the techni cal ac cur ac y of t he di st r i ctc o ur t’ s Gui del i ne s ca l cul at i o n” and “the di str i ct c ourt im p osed a se ntence w el lbel ow the s ugges ted Guidel i nes r ange. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. D e an , ___ F.3d ___, N o. 12-1539, 2013 W L 36278 1, at *3 ( 7th Cir. Jan. 31, 2013). The di s t r i c t c o ur t s e nt e nc e d Ba na s t o 1 6 0 mon ths o f i m p ri sonm ent. Banas a cknowle dges, as he m ust, that thi s s entence i s be l ow the Guidel i ne s ra nge o f18 8- 23510 N o. 12

- 1499

B an as also arg u es tha t an earlier rel e a se w o u ld allow him to 2 ear n m o r e m on ey to p ay as restitutio n to his v ictim s. ( A p p ellant ’ s Br. at19

- 20

. ) ButBana s di d notpr es en tthi s ar gum en t to th e d ist ri ct co u rt . ( S ee R

. 8 4 ); (Sente nc ing T r. at 12-24). A s a re s ul t, the ar gum en ti s f or fei ted , and w e re vi ew i ton l y f or p la in er ro r. SeeU ni t ed Sta t es v. Tayl or, 628 F. 3d 420, 424 ( 7th Cir

. 2 0 1 0 ) . W e d o n o t thi n k th a t a p la in er ro r oc cu rr ed h er e. A pl ai n e r r o r i s ( 1 ) a n e r r o r ( 2 ) th a t i s “ c l e a r ” o r “ o b v i ous ” a nd ( 3) affect ed the defendan t’ s “subst anti al ri ghts.” U n i te d S tat es v. Ol a no , 50 7 U .S. 725 , 73 4 (199 3). W e d o n ot th ink it w ou ld have be ena “clea r” or “obvi ous ” e rr or t o c onc l ude thatthe v alu e of the extr a restitu tion B an as m igh t earn w as ou tw eig he d b y the n eed to p u nish B an as for his crim es. m onths. H e a l so ackno w l ed ge s that thi s s entence was bel ow the 18 0- m onth sente nce g i ven t o Blac kburn, hi s co defe nd ant. N eve rthel ess , Banas a rgues that hi s s entence wa s o bj e c t i v e l y un r e a s o nab l e b e c a us e i t wa s no t e ven low er. W e disa gr ee. True, m any f acts w ei gh i n f avo r ofm i ti gati on. Banas i s a fi rs t- ti m e o ffender and i s unl i kel y t o re ci diva te. To hi s g re at cre dit, he a dm i tte d his gui l t, too k r esponsibi l i ty f orhi s ac ti ons, and has w or ked to provi de re sti tuti on t o hi s v i cti m s. A rguabl y, he was l e s s i nv o l v e d in pl a nn i ngthe f ra ud tha n Bl a c kb urn. And , ev eni fBa na s was g r ee dy an d uns cru pul o us whenhe l oo ted Canopy, atl eas t he did n ot m an age to l oo t qui te a s muc h a s Bl a c kb urn di d. Bu t the di str i ct j ud ge hear d and co n si dered al lo f these f acts
. A nd se t a gainst them , t h e dist ri ct j ud ge al so

2 ha d t o c o ns i derthe e xt r ao r di na r i l y s er i ou s n atur e o fthe und er l yi ng cr i m e. Banas was a keypl aye r i n m or e thanN o. 12

- 1499 11 $9 0,0 00 ,00 0 o f th eft an d f r a u d . Th at fac t a lon e c ou ld re as on ab ly jus tify a sig n ifica n t s en te n c e. See U nited St at e s v. Val l one, 698 F.3d 41 6, 49 7-9 8 (7 th C ir. 20 12 ) (in sen ten cing d efend an t for tax crim es, m ailfr a u d , w ire fra u d , an d c on sp ira c y, th e d ist ric t j u d ge c ou ld rea so n ab ly co ns i derthe $ 50 , 00 0, 00 0 loss am o unta s a “s i g ni fi ca nt factor” in favor ofa l ong er sent en ce). E ve n w or se w as B an as ’s c h o i c e of vic tim s. B an as st ole m edi calsa vi ngs fro m hi s cl i ents and used th em to fi na nc e hi s o wn hi g h- r o l l i ngl i fes ty l e. S ur ely s te al i ng heal th car e m oneyfro m si ck peopl e a l so j us tifi es a len gt h y s en te n c e. C

f

. U nited Sta tes v. Sch lueter, 63 4 F

. 3d 965, 96 7 (7 th C i r. 20 11) ( “an above

- ra nge s entence was appropriate because S chl ueter
. . . to ok advantage o f per so na lr el at i o ns hi p s to c he atthe m o uto fs i g ni fi ca nt su m s t h ey n ee d ed atcr itic al s ta ge s o f th eir live s” ); U nited Sta tes v. To ck es , 53 0 F

. 3d 62 8, 6 34 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( appr o ving abov e-range sent en ce for de fr au d ing an elderly coup le) ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ki ng, 50 6 F

. 3d 5 32, 53 6- 37 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) (appro vingabo ve - r an g e se nt en ce f o r de fen dan t who “po ck et [ ed] fun d s s eta si de f o r v i ct i m s o fHurr i ca ne K atr i n a”). A nd the dist ri ct j ud ge here r eas onabl y r eco gni z e d thi s f a c t ; h e s t a t e d tha th e h a d “ ne v e r s e e n a nother fi nanci alcr i m e thi s a ggr avat ed” in eighteen yea rs as a federa lj u d ge. ( Se ntenci ng Tr. at27

. ) Giv en the se ver i ty o fth e c r i me , a n d th e f a c t th a t B a n a s s t i l l r e c e i v e d a b e l o wGu i del i nes s entence , we do not thi nk tha t the di str i ct j udg e’ s se nt en ce was unr ea so nabl y ha r sh

. Fi n al l y, Banas a rgues that he w as enti tl ed to “a f ar l es serse ntence than Bl ackb urn” be cause he was l ess12 N o. 12

- 1499

c u lp ab le th an B lac kb u rn . ( A p p ella n t’s B r. at17 .) Th is ar gum ent b or ders on fri vol ous. Banas r e ce i ve d a lo w er se nt en ce tha n Bl ac kburn; Ba na s g o t 16 0 m o nths , a nd Blac kburn 180 m onths. A nd , bec ause that sente nce w as bel ow-G u i del i nes, we presum e i t t o be r eas onabl e. Se eKl ug, 67 0 F

. 3d at 800. B anas has no t o ver com e that p re su m p tio n . I t w as n otu n re as on ab le

— oran abuse of discr eti on

— f orthe dist ri ct c ourtto decl i ne to gi ve an ev en l ower s entence f orsuch a se ri ous c ri m e.

III. C ON CLU SI ON W e A F F I RM Banas’ s s entence
.

3- 14- 13