2009 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 10-29-2009 

# U SA v . Ad am Levinson 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 . 09-1161

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 . Ad am L evin s on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 357. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/357NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 09- 1161

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. ADAM LE VI NS ON, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C
. C r i m . N o. 1- 06- cr - 00062- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. Sue L
. R obi ns on

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober26, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed O ct ober29, 2009)

OP I NI ON2

S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge
. A ppel l antA dam L evi ns on pl ed gui l t yt o one countof w i r e fr aud, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 3 , a n d o n e c o u n t o f f ilin g a f a ls e ta x re tu rn , in v io la tio n o f 2 6 U .S .C . § 7206( 1)
. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a be l ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence of tw enty - fourm ont hs pr obat i on, i ncl udi ng s i x m ont hs of hom e conf i nement . A ft erthe governm entappea l ed, t hi s cour tconcl uded thatt he s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e, vaca t ed the
s e n te n c e , a n d re m a n d e d th e c a s e to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt f o r r e s e n te n c in g . See U

ni t ed Stat es
v. Levi ns on , 5 4 3 F . 3 d 1 9 0 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). O n r emand, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a ne w , buts t i l l bel ow - G ui del i nes , s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entfort w el ve mont hs and one da y . L evi ns on now appea l s , ar gui ng thatt he
n e w se n ten c e is a lso p ro c e d u ra llyu n re a so n a b le b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt a lleg e d ly concl uded thati tw as r equi r ed t o w ei gh the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes m or e hea vi l ythan the
o th e r s e n te n c in g f

a c to rs e n u m e ra te d b yC o n g re s s in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). I. L evi ns on w as t he managerand mi nor i t yow nerof a c om panythatpr ovi ded fi l t er ed dr i nki ng w at ert o r es i dence s and bus i nes s es . H e fa l s el yr epor t ed the company ’ s fi nanci al
s t atus and oper at i onal per form ance overa tw o y earper i od, and hi s bus i nes s part ner in v e s te d m illio n s o f

d o lla rs in to th e c o m p a n yb a s e d o n th o s e m is re p re s e n ta tio n s . L evi ns on al s o hi r ed an out s i de cons ul t antt o hi de hi s m achi nat i ons , for ced hi s empl oy ees to p a rt ic ip a te in th e f

ra u d , a n d p u n is h e d e m p lo y e e s w h o re f u s e d to d o s o .3

A ft erhi s bus i nes s par tnerr ece i ved an a nonym ous t i p r egar di ng hi s w r ongdoi ng, an audi tuncover ed Levi ns on’ s m i s r epr es ent at i ons as w el l as hi s us e of ove r$177, 000 of the company ’ s r evenue forhi s per s onal benef i t . L evi ns on al s o fai l ed t o r epor thi s us e of t hos e funds on hi s t ax r etur ns , and the governm ents uffe r ed an a ggr egat e t ax l os s of about $44, 000. A s not ed above , L evi ns on pl ed gui l t yt o one countof w i r e fr aud and one countof f ili n g a f a lse tax re tu rn b a se d o n th e f o re g o in g e v e n ts. H e a lso se ttl e d a c iv il fra u d su it b ro u g h t b yh is b u sin e ss p a rtn e r b yp a y in g $ 3 5 0 ,0 0 0 a n d re lin q u ish in g h is o w n e rsh ip in te re s t in th e irc o m p a n y . A tt he fi r s ts ent enci ng hear i ng, the D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned that L evi ns on fac ed an a dvi s or yG ui del i nes r ange of tw enty - fourt o t hi r t ym ont hs im p ri so n m en t. T h e C o u rtalso rejected L ev inso n ’s req u est fo r a d o w n w ard d ep arture
u n d e r t h e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s b a s e d o n h is a lle g e d ly d im in is h e d m e n ta l c a p a c ity. A ft erhear i ng ar gum entfr om bot h par t i es , the D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of tw e n ty -f o u r m o n th s p ro b a tio n , inc lu d in g a six m o n th p e rio d o f h o m e c o n f

in e m e n t, as w e ll
as 100 hour s of comm uni t ys ervi ce, about$177, 000 i n r es t i tut i on, and a $200 s peci al
a s s e s s m e n t. T he governm entappea l ed t o thi s cour t , and as not ed above , w e vac at ed the
s e n te n c e a n d re m a n d e d th e c a s e b e c a u s e th e s e n te n c e w a s p ro c e d u ra lly u n re a s o n a b le
. Fi r s t , w e conc l uded thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng thatL evi ns on’ s conducti nfl i ct ed no4

h a rm o n th e p u b lic– a f

in d in g u p o n w h ich th e D istric t C o u rt h e a v ilyre lied in im p o sin g its b e lo w -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e
– w a s c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s g iv e n th e ta x f ra u d c o n v ic tio n . Second, w e conc l uded thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s expl anat i on forthe var i ance w as i nadequa t e, par t i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof thatC our t ’ s fi ndi ngs thatL evi ns on w as notan atypi cal d e f e n d a n t in te rm s o f

h is p e rs o n a l c h a ra c te ri s tic s o r t h e p a rt ic u la rs o f h is c ri m e s . O n r emand, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr eaf fi r m ed i t s ear l i errul i ngs underthe Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s a n d a g a in h e a rd a rg u m e n t f ro m th e p a rt ie s re g a rd in g a n a p p ro p ri a te s e n te n c e . T he governm entar gued fora s ent ence w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange. I tcont ended that such a sen t ence w as approp ri at e beca use of the seri ou sness of L evinson’s fr aud and fal se t ax fi l i ngs , t he nee d fordet err ence , and the abs ence of anyper s onal char act er i s t i cs that d is tin g u is h L e v in s o n f

ro m th e m ill- ru n w h ite c o lla r d e f e n d a n t. O n t he otherhand, L evi ns on ar gued thatthe D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d agai n i m pos e a
s ent ence w i t houta t erm of i m pr i s onm ent . A ccor di ng t o L evi ns on, the gr avamen of the
cas e w as a pr i vat e fr aud thatw as ami cabl ys ett l ed i n t he ci vi l l aw s ui tbetw een Levi ns on
a n d h is b u sin e ss p a rtn e r. H e a lso a rg u e d th a t a te rm o f im p riso n m e n t w o u ld n e g a tiv e ly i m pacthi s fami l y , par t i cul ar l yhi s l earni ng- di s abl ed s on, and thathi s good conductunder th e o ri g in a l s e n te n c e s u p p o rt e d a b e lo w -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . T he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a be l ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entfor tw e lv e m o n th s a n d o n e d a y . T h e C o u rt id e n tifie d se v e ra l m iti g a tin g f a c to rs s p e c if

ic to L e v in so n , inc lu d in g h is g o o d c o n d u c t o n p ro b a tio n , the e x ten t to w h ich L e v in so n a n d h isTh e Di s t r i c t Co u r t h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 1 8 U. S
. C. 1 § 3231 a n d we h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r 2 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 18 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). 5 fami l yhad al r eadybeen puni s hed forhi s cr i m es , and hi s s l i ghtr i s k of r eci di vi s m . T he C our tal s o s t at ed thata w i t hi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence w as notappr opr i at e i n l i ghtof the ot hers ent ence s i s s ued t o w hi t e col l arcr i m i nal s w i t hi n t he di s t r i ctand the pas s age of t i m e. N o n e th e les s, th e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e ter m o f im p riso n m e n t o rd e re d w a s n e c e ss a ryto refl ectt he seri ou sness of the o ffen ses, t o p rom ote r espectfor the law , t o p rovi de just puni s hm ent , and t o aff

or d adequa t e det err ence . 1

II. W e r evi ew t he pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of a s ent ence underan
a b u s e -o f -d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd
. U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 562 F. 3d 558, 567 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc )
. “[A ] n abus e of di s cr et i on has occurr ed i f a di s t r i ctcour tbas ed i t s deci s i on on a cl ear l yerr oneous fac tual concl us i on oran err oneous l egal concl us i on, ” but“abs entany sign ifi ca n t pro ce d u ral error, w e m u st give d u e d ef ere n ce to the d istri ct co u rt ’s det erm i nat i on t hatt he § 3553( a) fac t or s , on a w hol e, j us t i fythe s ent ence . ” I d. at567- 68 (i n terna l qu o tat ion an d cit ati o n s o m itted). L e v in so n a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s n e w se n ten c e w a s p ro c e d u ra lly
unr eas onabl e bec aus e the C our ti m pr oper l yconcl uded thati tw as r equi r ed, as a mat t erof l aw , t o w ei gh t he advi s or yG ui del i nes s ent ence m or e hea vi l ythan hi s i ndi vi dual char act er i s t i cs . T hati s , L evi ns on ar gues thatthe ca s e i s anal ogous t o N el s on v. U ni t edL evi ns on al s o poi nt s t o s ever al s t at ement s m ade bythe 2 D i s t r i ctC our ti n an orde r s t ay i ng hi s comm i t m entpendi ng appea l t o t hi s cour t t o s uppor t hi s ar gum ent t hat t he C our t pl ace d i m pr oper w ei gh ton t he S entenci ng G uidel i nes. A ssum i ng t hat these stat em en ts, w h ich w ere m a d e in an o rde r i ssu ed af ter L ev inso n ’s s econd s ent enci n g hear i ng, ar e r el evantt o t he pr ocedur al r eas onablen ess of the s ent ence i t s el f, theydo nots ugges tthatthe D istri ct C o u rtm isun d erstoo d it s resp o n sibil it ies u n d er § 3 5 5 3 (a). 6 Stat es , 1 2 9 S
. C t . 8 9 0 ( 2 0 0 9 ) , w h i c h r e a f f i rm e d th a ta s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e m a y n o ta p p l y a presum pti on of reasonab l eness t o sentences r ecom m end ed b ythe G uidel i nes. H o w e v e r, L e v in so n m isc o n stru e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s s tate m e n ts re g a rd in g its anal y s i s of § 3553( a) ’ s s ent enci ng fac t or s . I m por t ant l y , the C our texpr es s l yr ecogni zed th a t itm u st “ c o n sid e r a ll o f th e S e c tio n 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs in d e ter m in in g a re a so n a b le
s e n te n c e .” A p p . a t 4 1 . T h e re c o rd a s a w h o le c le a rl yd e m o n s tr a te s th a t th e C o u rt d id s o . Speci fi cal l y , i tfound thats ever al fac t or s s uppor t ed a s ent ence bel ow the G ui del i nes
r ange, i ncl udi ng L evi ns on’ s good conductw hi l e on pr obat i on, the ext entt o w hi ch he ha d alread yb ee n p u n ishe d , h is sl igh t r isk o f re cidiv ism , an d the p assa g e o f ti m e. T h e C o u rt t hen pr oper l ybal ance d t hos e mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s agai ns tthe r emai ni ng § 3553( a) fac t or s , i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange, and conc l uded thatt he t erm of i m pr i s onm enti m pos ed w as appr opr i at e. I n fac t , as the governm entar gues , the
v eryfa ct th at th e D istri ct C o u rtim p o sed a se n tenc e su b stan ti all yb elow the a d v isory G ui del i nes r ange unde r m i nes L evi ns on’ s cl ai m thatthe C our taff or ded i m pr operw ei ght t o the G uidel i nes. 27

L evi ns on al s o ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bec aus e i tal l egedl ys t at ed that t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ful l yacc ountforthe i ndi vi dual hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of a defe ndant
. H ow ever , t he C our tm er el ys t at ed thatthe G ui del i nes r efl ect“the hi s t oryand char act er i s t i cs of the def endanti ns ofaras the def endant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orygoes , ” A pp. at 41, and theyi n fac tdo s o i n t he cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egorycomponentof the G ui del i nes cal cul at i on. M or e i m por t ant l y , as des cr i bed above , the D i s t r i ctC our tcl ear l ycons i der ed L evi ns on’ s i ndi vi dual char act er i s t i cs and r el i ed on thos e cha r act er i s t i cs t o i m pos e a
s ubs t ant i al l ybel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence . In su m , the D istri ct C o u rtap p rop ri atelyresp o n d ed to the p roc ed u ral errors i dent i fi ed byt hi s cour ti n L evi ns on’ s or i gi nal s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs and pr ovi ded a compl et e, cogent , and r eas onabl e expl anat i on on t he r ecor d of i t s r eas ons fori m pos i ng th e n e w s e n te n c e o n re m a n d
. III . Fort he above
- s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the s ent ence .