2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-21-2010

USA v. Wesley Snyder

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-3081

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

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 2010 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. Wesley Snyder" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 926.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/926
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 08-3081

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

WESLEY SNYDER,

 Appellant

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 07-cr-00450-1)

District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 12, 2010

Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.

(Filed : July 21, 2010 )

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

Wesley A. Snyder pled guilty to one count of Mail Fraud Affecting a Financial

Institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The District Court sentenced him to 146

months’ imprisonment, three years supervised release, restitution in the amount of
 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This court has 1

appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. 

2

$29,267,080, and a $100 special assessment. Snyder’s sentencing range under the

Guidelines was 121 to 151 months. On appeal, Snyder urges that the District Court

unreasonably applied the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We

conclude the District Court imposed a procedurally and substantively reasonable

sentence, and we will affirm the District Court’s sentencing order. 

I.1

We review the District Court’s sentencing for reasonableness under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 522 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We must “first ensure

that the District Court committed no significant procedural error,” and, if no procedural

error was committed, then we must “consider the substantive reasonableness of the

sentence imposed.” Id. As we noted in United States v. Ausburn:

In considering a criminal defendant’s claim that a sentence is

unreasonable, a reviewing court asks whether the district

court: (1) exercised its discretion by giving “meaningful

consideration to the § 3553(a) factors; and (2) applied those

factors reasonably by selecting a sentence grounded on

reasons that are logical and consistent with the [§ 3553(a)]

factors. When we reach this last step, we apply a deferential

standard, the trial court being in the best position to determine

the appropriate sentence in light of the particular

circumstances of the case.

502 F.3d 313, 328 (3d Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). Section 3553(a) lists seven factors

that a sentencing court must consider. The first factor is a broad command to consider
3

“the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the

defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). The second factor requires the consideration of the

general purposes of sentencing, including: 

the need for the sentence imposed- 

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote

respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the

offense; 

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; 

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant;

and 

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or

vocational training, medical care, or other correctional

treatment in the most effective manner.

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The third factor pertains to “the kinds of sentences available,” 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(3); the fourth to the Sentencing Guidelines; the fifth to any relevant

policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission; the sixth to “the need to avoid

unwarranted sentence disparities,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6); and the seventh to “the need to

provide restitution to any victim,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7). 

At the time of sentencing, Snyder was 72 years old and had no criminal history. 

Snyder had been the owner and operator of six businesses in the Reading, PA area. On

September 18, 2007, all six of Snyder’s companies filed for bankruptcy. Investigations

by postal inspectors and state and federal agencies followed. These investigations

revealed that Snyder had operated a mortgage-related “Ponzi” scheme through the United

States mails, successfully defrauding more than 800 individuals out of more than $29

million. Snyder pled guilty to one count of Mail Fraud Affecting a Financial Institution
4

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The District Court sentenced him to 146 months’

imprisonment, three years supervised release, restitution in the amount of $29,267,080,

and a $100 special assessment. 

Snyder contends that the District Court should have granted a downward variance

based on the individual circumstances of this case and Snyder’s individual characteristics

in accordance with § 3553(a). Specifically, Snyder urges that the District Court did not

adequately consider his age, poor health, history of community service, and lack of

malicious intent.

This contention has no merit. The District Court considered the § 3553(a) factors

and weighed them appropriately before imposing a sentence at the higher end of the

Guidelines. The District Court noted Snyder’s age as well as the fact that the crime

Snyder had been convicted of had continued for two decades. The District Court

acknowledged Snyder’s history of community service but drew attention to the

devastation brought upon the community by Snyder’s criminal activity. The District

Court likewise gave Snyder credit for his guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility

even though the Court failed to find Snyder’s statement of remorse persuasive. Finally,

the District Court considered the more than 600 victim impact statements submitted to the

Court, detailing a staggering amount of loss. In weighing all of the factors set forth in

§ 3553(a) and considering the circumstances as a whole, the District Court concluded that

just punishment warranted a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range. In sum, it
5

is clear that the District Court properly considered the sentencing factors set forth in

§ 3553(a) and imposed a reasonable sentence.

III.

For the reasons set forth above, we will AFFIRM the Order of the District Court.