2005 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 12-20-2005 

# U SA v . Ledes m a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1563

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . L e de s m a" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 77. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/77T he H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak, D i s tr i ctJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe * E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 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. 05- 1563 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. T E ODOR O L E DE S M A, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY D . C . C r i m . N o. 00- cr - 00096 D i stri ctJudg e: T he H on orabl e D i ckinson R . D ebev ois e Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember17, 2005 B efor e: B A R R Y and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and PO L L A K , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber20, 2005)

OP I NI ON2

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge T eodor o L edes m a appe al s fr om hi s s ent ence of s i xty - thr ee mont hs i m pr i s onm ent a n d f i v e y e a r s s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e f o rb a n k f r a u d . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. B ecause the part i es ar e fam i l i ar w i th the fact s of t he case, w e m enti on on l ytho se pert i nentt o ourr es ol ut i on of thi s appea l . L edes m a i s a ci t i zen of M exi co, and i s not l egal l yr es i denti n t he U ni t ed St at es . I n 1997 and 1998, he s t ol e appr oxi m at el y$244, 000 fro m the Im m ac u lada F ed era l C red itU n ion (“IF C U ”) b ysell ing IF C U m o n eyo rde rs w i thoutr emi t t i ng the corr es pondi ng amount s t o I FC U . A tthe s ame t i m e, A l i ci a B runo s t ol e appr oxi m at el y$256, 000 fr om I FC U . L edes m a and Bruno a ct ed i ndepende nt l ybut us ed s ubs t ant i al l yi dent i cal s chemes . T he amounts t ol en byL edes m a and Bruno w as b e twe e n h a l f

a n d th r e e - q u a r t e r s o f

I F CU’ s t o t a l a s s e t s . I n th e s p r i n g o f 1 9 9 8 , Le d e s ma a d m i t t e d t o I F C U ’ s m a n a g e rth a th e o w e d i to v e r$ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 , w h i c h h e p r o m i s e d t o r e p a y. H e di d m ake s om e paym ent s , buthad s t opped doi ng s o bythe s pr i ng of 1999. IF C U w a s liq u id a ted a s in so lv e n t b yth e N a tio n a l C re d it U n io n A d m in istra tio n in J une of 1999. L edes m a and Bruno w er e cha r ged w i th bank fr aud under18 U . S. C . § 1344, a n o f f e n s e p u n i s h a b l e b y i m p r i s o n m e n to f u p t o th i r ty ye a r s . B o th p l e a d e d g u i l ty. L edes m a’ s pl ea a gr eements t i pul at ed t o m anycomponent s of hi s Sent enci ng G ui del i nes cal cul at i on buts peci fi cal l yi ndi cat ed thatL edes m a and the governm enthad notagr eed a s t o the appl i cabi l i tyt o hi m of Speci fi c O ffe ns e C har act er i s t i c § 2F1. 1. ( b) ( 7) ( A ) ( 1998) for

“ su b sta n tiallyjeo p a rd iz[ in g ] th e sa f e tya n d so u n d n e ss o f

a f in a n c ial in stitu tio n .” W h e n it3

ap p li es, th e b ase o ff

en se lev el i s inc rea sed b yfo u r, to a m inim u m o f tw en ty -fo u r. L ed esm a’s se n tenc ing w as sc h ed u led f o r A u g u st 21 , 2 0 0 0 . H e d id n o t app ea r. Inst ead, he fl ed, fi rs tt o N evad a and then t o T enn essee, assum i ng a nu m ber of fals e i dent i t i es al ong the w ay . O n M ay24, 2004, he w as arr es t ed i n H arr i m an, T ennes s ee, for dr i vi ng w hi l e underthe i nfl uence of al cohol . I n the i nt erveni ng foury ear s , B runo had been s ent ence d t o t hi r ty - s even mont hs i m pr i s onm ent . T he governm enti ntr oduced evi dence of I FC U ’ s col l aps e atB runo’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng, and the D i s tr i ctC our tfound i n i t s s t at ementof r eas ons thatboth L edes m a and Bruno ha d caus ed a s ubs t ant i al por t i on o f th e t o t a l l o s s th a tf

o r c e d I F C U i n t o i n s o l v e n c y. L edes m a w as s ent ence d on February14, 2005 bythe s ame D i s tr i ctJ udge w ho had s ent ence d B runo. H i s pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eport( PSR ) l ar gel ym i rr or ed hi s pl ea agr eementi n i t s r ecomm ended s ent ence , al bei tw i th adj us t m ent s r el at ed t o hi s fl i ght . T he P S R r e c o mme n d e d th a tth e Di s tr i c tCo u r tf i n d th a t§ 2 F . 1 . 1 ( b ) ( 7 ) ( A) a p p l i e d . Le d e s ma obj ect ed t o thi s r ecomm endat i on byl ett ert o the pr obat i on offi ce a nd athi s s ent enci ng h e a rin g . H e a lso a rg u e d th a t h e d e se rv e d a sh o rte r se n ten c e b e c a u se h e h a d m a d e e f f o rts t o r epayI FC U , beca us e he ha d no cr i m i nal r ecor d, and bec aus e he w as w i l l i ng t o s ubj ect h im self to d ep o rt ati o n p roc ee d ing s. T h e D istri ct C o u rtrejected L ed esm a’s a rgu m en ts. It found that§ 2F1. 1( b) ( 7) ( A ) appl i ed bec aus e Ledes m a’ s and B runo’ s theft s caus ed IFC U ’s l i qu i dati on ; w i th respectt o L edesm a’s otherargum ents , i tst at ed, “In the ex erci se of m ydi s cr et i on I am t aki ng thes e ci r cumst ance s i nt o acc ountw hen det erm i ni ng theW e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). W e a p p lyp len a ryre v iew to 1 ques t i ons of l aw , i ncl udi ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the Sent enci ng G u i d e l i n e s . S e e , e . g . , U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Mo o r e r , 3 8 3 F . 3 d 1 6 4 , 1 6 7 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . We re v iew th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n s o f f a c t f o r c lea r e rro r, w ith d u e d e f e re n c e to its appl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes t o t he fa ct s . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. T hom as , 327 F. 3d 2 5 3 , 2 5 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 4 appr opr i at e s ent ence . ” The t ot al offe ns e l evel w as tw enty - s i x, w hi ch, w hen combi ned w ith L e d e sm a ’s la c k o f a c rim in a l h isto ry , res u lted in a se n ten c in g ra n g e o f six ty -th re e to s eventy - ei ghtm onths i m pr i s onm ent . Fi ndi ng thatthi s r ange w as “appr opr i at e, ” the D istri ct C o u rtsen tenc ed L ed esm a to s ixty -th ree m o n ths im p ri so n m en t, fiv e y ea rs s upervi s ed r el eas e, and paym entof r es t i tut i on. L edes m a appe al ed. 1 L edes m a fi r s tcont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed bys ent enci ng hi m w i thout cons i der i ng the s t atut oryr equi r ement s of 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . T hats ubs ect i on r equi r es the s ent enci ng j udge t o “cons i der ” s even f act or s , of w hi ch the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange i s onl yone. A ccor di ng t o L edes m a, the D i s tr i ctC our tent i r el ydi s r egar ded the other s i x fac t or s . W e di s agr ee. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s t at ementof r eas ons r epea t edl yr ecogni zed the di s cr et i on w i th w hi ch i tw as ves t ed and the fa ct or s thatw er e t o i nform thatdi s cr et i on. N ei ther§ 3553( a) norU ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) , r equi r es thati tdo m o re. “[T h e F ed era l Se n tenc ing A ct po st- B o o k er] r equi r es a s ent enci ng courtt o cons i der G u id e lin e ra n g e s, b u t it p e rm its the c o u rtto tail o r th e se n tenc e in ligh t of o ther statutory conce rns , as w el l . ” B ooker , 125 S. C t . at757 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( emphasi s added) . T he D istri ct C o u rtco n side red tho se o ther c o n ce rns b u t cho se n o t t o tai lor th e se n tenc e f u rth er.Led e s ma ha d a mpl e op po r tun i tyt o p r e s e nte vi de nc e i n r e bu t t a l . Se e Fe d. R. Cr i m. P. 2 3 2 (i )(2). H e a lso w as o n “f air no ti ce ” o f th e e v iden ce u p o n w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt reli ed . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . R ey n o so , 2 5 4 F . 3 d 4 6 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 5 L edes m a nextar gues thatther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h thathe j eopar di zed the s oundnes s of a f i nanci al i ns t i tut i on. W e di s agr ee. L edes m a s t ol e an a m o u n t eq u iv a len t to m o re th a n a q u a rte r o f IF C U ’s to tal a ss e ts; th e N a tio n a l C re d it U n ion A d m inistrati o n ind icated that h is an d B run o ’s th ef ts l ed d ir ec tl yto IF C U ’s col l aps e. L edes m a neve roffe r ed anyevi dence t o the contr ary . T he D i s tr i ctC our thad m or e than s uffi ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch t o fi nd that§ 2F1. 1( b) ( 7) appl i ed. 2 F in a lly , L e d e sm a a rg u e s th a t B o o k e r f o rb a d e th e D istric t C o u rt f ro m in c re a sin g h is se n ten c e b a se d o n its o w n f a c t-f in d in g . H e m isa p p re h e n d s B o o k e r, w h ich a p p lies o n lyto f a c ts “ n e c e ss a ryto su p p o rt a se n ten c e e x c e e d in g th e m a x im u m a u th o riz e d b yth e f a c ts e sta b lish e d b ya p lea o f g u ilty .” B o o k e r, 1 2 5 S . C t. at 7 5 6 . L e d e sm a ’s s e n ten c e w a s w e ll wi th i n th e th i r ty - y e a rs t a tu t o r yma x i mu m f o rb a n k f r a u d . S e e 1 8 U. S . C. § 1 3 4 4 . As j eopar di zi ng the s oundnes s of a f i nanci al i ns t i tut i on w as notan el ementof the cr i m e of b a n k f r a u d , th e D i s tr i c tC o u r tw a s p e r m i t t e d t o m a k e th a tf a c tu a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n b y a p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . M il ler, 4 1 7 F . 3 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 2 -63 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n ts o f

c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e o f th e D istric t C o u rt.