NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0538n.06 No. 09-5218 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,

v. CH AD SOC OLOV ITC H, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UN ITED STA TES DI STRIC T CO UR T F OR THE WE S TE RN DIS TR IC T O F K EN TU CKY

Be for e : S ILER , G IBBO NS, and G RI F F IN , C ir c uitJudg e s. JULIA SMITH GIBBONS , Circuit Judge. De fe ndant -app ell ant Ch ad S oco lo vi tch app eal s fr om t he se nte nc e and or de r of re sti tut ion imp os e d on him

. Soc olo vit c h ple d g uil ty to f ive c ounts of mail fra

ud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13 4 1

. T h e Un i t ed States District Court for the Western Dis t rict of Ke ntucky

sentenc ed him to five months incarc eration and five months of super vised rele ase subjec t to the special c ondition of home confineme nt, followed by the re mai n d er of three y ear s of supervise d rele ase. The court a lso order ed S ocolovitch t o pay $63,575.50 in restitution. For the re asons that follow, we aff irm the sentenc e and or der of restitution. I. Socolovitch ma in ta in e d tw o w e b s it e s , p r o w r e s tl in g r in g s 4 sale.c om and proring s4sale.tripod.com, on which he offe red wrestling ring s for sale . The sites invited customersUnited States v. Soc olovitch

No. 09-5218

2 to mail pay

ment to a post office box in L ouisvill e, Kentucky , controlled by Socolovitch. Fr om 2001 to 2 00 3, Soc olo vit c h d e po sit e d v ari ou s c us tom e r p ay me nts but fa ile d to de liv e r the wr e stl ingri ng s. After rec ei v i n g co m p laints about the sites, the Kentuc ky Attorney Gene ral’s O ffice beg an an investigation into S ocolovitch that led to his eventua l indictment on five counts of m ai l fr au d on October 17, 2007. P u rs u an tt o a w ri t t enp l eaagr ee m en t , S o co l o v i t ch p l edgu i l t y t o th e in d i ct m en t

. I nex ch an ge for his plea

of guilty , the g overnme nt a g ree d to r ecommend both a sentenc e at the lowest end of the United S t ates Sentenc ing Commission Guidelines (“Guide lines”) r ang e and that Socolovitch be g ra nte d a tw o- le ve l r e du c tio n f

or a c c e pta nc e of re sp on sib ili ty . The g ov e rnme nt f ur the r a g re e d th a t, if Socolovitch paid $2,000 in restitution on or before the date of sentenc ing, it would stipulate that the amount of loss was g reater than $30,000 b u t l ess than $70,000. B eca use the g overnme nt had ide nti fi e d twe nty -s e ve n v ic tim s w ithan a g g re g a te los s o f $ 78 ,8 07 .5 0, the pr a c tic a l e ff e c t of thi s stipulation was to reduce Socolovitch’s anticipated total of fense level by

two. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1( b )( 1 )( E ) ( p ro v i d i n g ei gh t -l ev el en h an ce m en twh er e l o s s i s gre at er t h an $ 7 0 , 0 0 0 b u tl es s t h an $120,000), with U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b) (1)( D) (providing six -leve l enhanc ement whe re loss is g reater than $30,000 but less than $70,000). At sentenc ing, however , the g overnme nt indicated that it had been una ble t o l o ca t e al l o f the victims and that the total amount of loss it could prove wa s $63,575.50. Consequently , the court applied the six -leve l e nhance ment applicable to a loss gr eate r than $30,000 but less than $70,000. This resulted in a t otal offe nse leve l of twelve a nd a

rec ommended Guidelines r ang e of te n to six teen months in custody . Be cause the re comm ended sentenc e fe ll within Zone C of the Sentenc ing T able, the minimum term of imprisonment could beUnited States v. Soc olovitch

No. 09-5218

3 satisfied by

a split sentence of inca

rce ration and home confine ment. SeeU.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(d)(2). Socolovitch o b

je c te d to th e b a s is f

o r th e c o u rt’ s f

in d in g th a t th e a mo u n t o f lo s s was $63,575.50. The g overnme nt was prep ar ed t o o ffe r the testimony of Tom Ginter, a

n investigator with the Consumer Protection Division o f t h e Ke n t u cky Attorney Gene ral’s O ffice . Ginter wa s prepa red to testify

that he or the Assistant U nited States Attorney assig ned to the case had spoken pe rs on a lly

wi th e a c h o f t

he vic tim s and ve ri fi e d the a mou nt of los s, wi th the e xce pti on of on e vic tim whose loss was ba sed on a r eport she filed with the Be tter B usiness Bur eau. Socolovitch stipulated that Ginter would testify

to this i nformation, but he arg ued that the testimony would have be en he ars ay and no t su ff ic ie ntl y re lia ble . T he c ourt

ov e rr ule d th e ob

je c tio ns . Acc epting the cour

t’s finding that the amount of l oss was $63,575.50–subject to the above ob je c tio ns –So c olo vit c h a g re e d w iththe c ourt ’s Gu ide lin e s ca lc ulatio ns but ar g ue d th a t th e “ sp ir it” of t he plea ag ree ment entitled him to an additional two-leve l reduc tion. I n essenc e, Socolovitch’s positio nw a s th a t h e r e c e iv e d n o th in g in

e xc h an g e f

o r b r in g in g $ 2 , 0 0 0 to s e n te n c in g b e c a u s e the g overnme nt would have be en unable to prove loss gre at er t h an $ 7 0,000 in any event. The court disag ree d that the plea a g ree ment require d a further reduc tion, finding that “ the sentenc e is driven by the a mou

nt o f l os s. ” The c ourt

a lso re a so ne d th a t th e g ov e rnme nt “ ma de so me c on c e ssi on s” beca use the amount of loss was at the hig h end of the rele vant rang e of $30,000 to $70,000 while the

rec ommended sentence was at the l ow end of the c orre sponding Guidelines rang e. The ref ore, the court de nied Socolovitch an additional two-le vel re duction. Finally , Socolovitch addre ssed t he 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fac tors. He a rgued that the c ollatera l

c on se qu e nc e s o f h is c on vic ti on we re unus ua lly ha rs h b e c a us e a fe lony c on vic tio n p re ve nte d h imUnited States v. Soc olovitch

No. 09-5218

4 from obtaining the work visas ne cessa ry to continue his car eer as a pr ofessional wr estler in Mexico and elsewhere abroa d, as well as from seeing his wife and five-year -old son in Mex ico. In light of these c onsequenc es and his la ck of a criminal history , Socolovitch a sked for a sentenc e of pr obation. The district c ourt imposed a split sentence of five months inca rce ration and f

ive months of supervised r elea se subject to the spe cial condition of home c onfinement, followed by the balanc e of thr e e y e ars of

su pe rv ise d r e le a se . Th e c ourt re je c te d a se nte nc e of

pr ob a tio n, fi nd ingthat “ any tim e that fra ud is committ ed and you steal $63,000, t here has to be a term of se ntence [ sic ] i mposed.” Al tho ug h th e c ourt

wa s sy mpa the tic to S oc olo vit c h’ s famil y sit uatio n, the c ourt

re a so ne d th a t a do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e wa s n ot w arr ante d on that sc or e be c a us e the “ c oll a te ra l da

ma g e to l ov e d o ne s”

wa s n ot “ ou t of

the no rm ” and

wa s, in f a c t, l e ss s e ve re tha

n that the c ourt

ha d s e e n in

oth e r c a se s. Pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restit ution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, the cour t ordere d restitution in the amount of the loss, or $63,575.50. Socolovitch timely appea led. II. W e review “ a district cour t’s sentenc ing de termination[] ‘under a def ere ntial abuse-of

discretion standa

rd,’ f or re asonable ness.” United States v. Lalonde , 509 F.3d 750, 76 9 (6t h Cir. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Gall v. United States , 1 28 S. Ct . 5 86 , 5 91 (2 00 7) ). Re a so na ble ne ss “ c on ta ins bo th proce dural a

n d s u b s t an t ive components.” Lalonde , 509 F.3d at 769. Procedura l error includes “fa iling to ca lculate ( or improper ly calc ulating) the Guid el i n es ra ng e, tre ating the Guidelines a sUnited States v. Soc olovitch

No. 09-5218

Se c tio n 3 55 3( a ) p ro vid e s in re le va nt p art : 1 Th e c ourt sh a ll i mpo se a

se nte nc e su ff

ic ie nt, but no t g re a te r t

ha n n e c e ssa ry , to c omp ly wi th t he purp os e s se t f

or th i n p ara g ra

ph(2 ) o f t his su bs e c tio n. Th e c ourt , in deter mining the pa

rticular se ntence to be imposed, shall consider– (1) the nature a

n d ci rcumstanc es of the of fense and the history

and c ha ra c te ri sti c s o f t

he de fe nd ant; (2) the ne ed for

the sentenc e imposed– (A) to r efle ct the ser iousness of the offe nse, to pr omote respe ct for the law, and to pr ovide just punishment for the offe nse; (B ) t o a ff or d a de qu a te de te rr e nc e to c ri min a l c on du c t; (C) to protec t the public from fur ther c rimes of the de fenda nt; and (D) to pr ovide the def

endant with nee ded educ ational or vocational tr a ini ng , me dic a l c are , o r o the r c or re cti on al tr e a tme nt i n th e mos t eff ective ma nner[.] 5 mandatory , failing to consider the § 3553( a) f actor s, selec ting a

sentenc e base d on clea

rly err oneous 1 fac ts, or failing to adequately e xp la in th e c hosen sentenc e–includingan explanation for a ny deviation from the Guide lines rang e.” Ga ll , 12 8 S. Ct. a t 59 7; United States v. Garc ia-Robles , 562 F.3d 763, 766 (6th Cir. 2009). I f we find that the sentenc e is proce durally rea sonable, “ we must ‘then c onsider the substantive re asonable ness of the se ntence imposed.’” United States v. Polihonki , 543 F.3d 318, 3 2 2 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Ga ll , 128 S. Ct . at 597). Substantive re asonable ness re view re quires us to take into acc ount “the totality of the c i rc u m s tance s.” Ga ll , 128 S. Ct . at 597. “A r eviewing

c o u rtw i l l f

i n d t h a ta s e n t e n c e i s s u

b s t an t i v e l y un rea sona blewher e the district cour t selects the sentenc e ar

bitrarily , bases the se ntence on impermissible factor s, fails to consider pe r ti n e nt § 3553(a)United States v. Soc olovitch

No. 09-5218

Aft er t h e c o u rt an n o u n ce d

S o co l o v i t ch ’s s en t en ce an d t h e r ea s o n s fo r i t , t h e c o u rt asked “ Are 2 there any objections to the sentenc e pronounce d or specia l c ondition im posed, all of whic h shall be incorpora ted in the judgme nt, not previously raised . . . [o] n behalf of the de fenda

nt? ” Counsel for Socolovitch responded, “No, sir.” 6 fac tors, or g ives an unre asonable amount of we ight to any pertinent fa ctor.” Un ite d States v . Ta te , 5 1 6 F

. 3 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 9 ( 6 th

Cir. 20 0 8 ) ( inte r

n a l q u o tati o nma

r k s , b r a c k e ts , an d

c it a ti o no mi tt e d )

. We apply a pre s u m p t i on of re asonable ness to sentenc es that fa ll within t he prope rly calc ulated Guidelines ra

ng e. Se e Un ite d S

tates v . G rif

fin , 530 F.3d 433, 439 ( 6th Cir. 2008). A. Socolovitch first argues that his se ntence is procedur ally unrea sonable be cause the district court “ fail[ed] to adequa

tely explain the sentence .” Specif ically , Socolovitch contends that the c ourt g ave only “cur sory consideration” to his family situation. W e re view this claim only for plain e rror be c a us e Soc olo vit c h f

a ile d to ob

je c t to the a de qu a c y

of th e e xplanatio n b e fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt

. 2 See United States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2008) ( en banc ). To esta blish plain error, Socolov it c h mu s t s h o w “ ( 1 ) e r r o r ( 2 ) th a t w a s o b v io u s o r c le ar , ( 3 ) th a t a f

f e c te d d e fenda nt’s substantial rig hts and (4) that affe cted the f ai rn ess, i nteg rity , or public re putation of the judicial proce eding s.” Id. (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted). Our re view of the rec ord in this case r evea ls that the district court did not err in a nnouncing Socolovitch’s sentenc e. The substance o f S o colovitch’s ar g ument is that a term of inc arc eration poses a g reater hardship on him than on other de fenda nts beca use his family

lives in Mex ico. The

c ou rt ’ s c o m m e n t s a t s e n t e n c i n g i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e c o u rt c o n s i d e r e d t h i s ar g u m e n t an d r e je c te d it beca use, in the cour

t’s experience , the impact on Socolovitch and his famil y wa s n o t “out of theUnited States v. Soc olovitch

No. 09-5218

I n announcingSocolovitch’s sentenc e, the c ourt stated: 3 I f I look at all those [§ 3553(a)] factor s, I ’m mindful, sir, of the fa ct that it does aff ect y o uan d y o u r f am i l y . A n d

c o l l a t e r a l d a m a g e t o l o v e d o n e s a l w a ys h a

p p e n s . It doesn’t alwa

y s happen, but it happens in 95 perc ent of the cases. I t may aff ect you more than some, but it also affec ts y ou less than some. I can’ t say that it’s out of the norm of the ty

pes of c ollatera l damag e. As a m at t er o f fa ct , I s ee m an y , m an y ca s es wi t hm u ch m o re s ev er e c o l l at er al d am age to family members than I

see he re. So I

don’t see a

ny rea son t o go d i ffe rently

or depar t for any rea son beca

use of that issue.

7 norm.” The court e x plicitly stated that it g ave c onsideration t o S ocolovitch’s fa mily situation. 3 Al tho ug h th e c ourt

did no t sp e c if

ic a lly discus s th e fa c t th a t So c olo vit c h’ s w if e and so n li ve in Mexi co, it was n o t re q u i re d to do so. Rather, the c ourt was r equire d to provide a state ment of

rea sons sufficient to per suade us that the c ourt “c onsidered t h e d ef en d ant’s ar g ument and . . . explained the basis for r ejec ting it,” United St ates v. J ones , 489 F.3d 243, 251 (6th Cir. 2007) , which it d id. Con se qu e ntl y , the c ourt fo un d no re a so n to g ra nt a do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e on tha t ba sis . T his explanation, “though br ief, wa s leg ally sufficie nt.” See R ita v. United States , 127 S. Ct . 2456, 2468 (2007). Socolovitch has not ra ised any other proc edur al o b

j ec t i o n to his sentence. We f ind no proce dural e rror , plain or otherw ise. B. Be cause we c onclude that the se ntence is pr ocedur ally rea sonable, we must consider whether i t i s substantively

rea sonable. Se e Ga ll , 1 2 8 S. Ct

. a t 5 9 7

. We n o te a t th e o u ts e t that we a ffor d a pr e su mp t i o no f

r e a s o n a b l e n e s s t o s e n t e n c e s t h at , l i k e S o c o l o v i t c h ’ s , f a l l w i t h i nt h e p r o p e r lyUnited States v. Soc olovitch

No. 09-5218

Socolovitch argues that his sentenc e fell outside the Guidelines rang e because it consisted 4 of only five months incar cer ation while the Guidelines r ang e was ten to sixteen months. However , the Guidelines ra

ng e fe ll in Zone C of the SentencingTable, which a u t h o ri z es a spl it sentence of incar cer ation and home c onfinement. SeeU.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(d)(2). In this case, the district c ourt imposed a sentenc e of five months incarc eration and five months of home c onfinement, bring ing the total te rm of imprisonment to ten months–the bottom of the Guidelines ra ng e. See U

nited States v. Strozier , 940 F.2d 985, 988 ( 6th Cir. 1991). 8 calc ulated Guidelines r ang e. Se e Un ite d Sta te s v. B erry , 565 F.3d 332, 341 ( 6th Cir. 2009). 4 Socolovitch argues that his sentenc e is substantively unrea sonable be cause the district court fa iled to consider the § 3553( a) f actor s, beca

use of his family

situation, and beca

use the sent en ce w as inc on sis te nt w iththe “ sp ir it” of the ple a a g re e me nt. We addre ss Socolovitch’s first two arguments toge ther. Socolovitch ar g ues that a c ustodial sentenc e wa s substantively unrea sonable in lig ht of his personal history , lack of a criminal re cord, and fa mily situation, and that a sentenc e of pr obation would have be en m o re appropr iate. The distr ic t c o u rt w e ig h e d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s an d d e te r

mi n e d th a t a p e r io d o f in c ar c e r a tion was

nece ssary beca

use S ocolovitch defraude d his customers out of at least $63,000. Socolovitch has not rebutted the presumption of re asonable ness nor shown that this was an abuse of discretion. Socolovitch’s argument that his se ntence was e x cessively harsh is unper suasive in light of the fa ct that it repre sented less than one perc ent of the statutory maxi mum term, fell at the bottom of the Gu ide lin e s r ang e , a

nd c on sis te d o f a

sp lit se nte nc e that a llo we d h im t o s e rv e ha lf of the te rm in h ome

c on fi ne me nt. Wit h respe ct to the plea a g ree ment, Socolovitch argues that the “ spirit” of the a g ree ment

e n ti tl e d h im to a tw o - le v e l r e d

u c ti o nto p r e v e n t a

“ s e n te n c in g w in d f

a ll ” f o r th e g ove r

n me n t. WeUnited States v. Soc olovitch

No. 09-5218

The g overnme nt, however , appar ently anticipated that it mig ht not be able to conta ct all of 5 the victims, bringingthe prova ble amount of loss under $70,000. A t sentenc i n g, the prosec utor stated: We w ere close to the $70,000, a nd in order to e ncoura g e–and I k ne w it w as go ing

to fall in under be c a

us e c e rt a in p e op le we ha dn ’t be e n a ble to g e t aho ld o f. An d s o in order to encour ag e some down pa y ment , I d i d agr ee. That is why it’s in the plea a g re e me nt. Soc olo vit c h a

rgue s th a t g ov e rnme nt’ s p re -p le a kn ow le dg e that the pr ov a ble a mou nt o f l os s w ou ld fa ll b e low

$7 0, 00 0 n e c e ssi tate s a

tw o- le ve l r e du c tio n to ho no r t he “ sp ir it” of

the ple a a g re e me nt. We disag ree . I n contra ct t erms, S ocolovitch m ade a uni latera l mistake of fa ct as to the amount of provable loss. Just as unilatera l mistake of fac t doe s not void a contra ct, see Nick lin v. Hende rson , 352 F.3d 1077, 1081 ( 6th Cir. 2003), it does not warra nt our rewriting the ter m s o f t he plea ag ree ment here

. 9 interpre t plea agr eeme nts acc ording to traditional principles of c ontrac t law. Un ite d S tates v . Lu k

se , 28 6 F .3 d 9 06 , 9 09 (6 th C ir . 2 00 2) . Pa ra g ra phte n o f t

he ple a a g re e me nt p ro vid e s in

re le va nt p art : Sho uld the de fe nd ant pa

y to the dis tr ic t c ourt on [or ] b e fo re the da y of se nte nc ingin this case a n am o u n t equal to at lea st $2,000, which monies will be applied towar d restitution due and owingin his case, the United States will a g ree and stipulate that for pur poses of a

pply ing sen tencingg uidelines, the cour t should use § 2B 1. 1( b) (1 )( D) , th a t is the g uid e lin e ra ng e fo r a los s g re a te r t

ha n $ 30 ,0 00, b ut l e ss than $70,000. Thus , th e langua g e of

the ple a a g re e me nt b ound

the g ov e rnme nt t o r e c omm e nd that th e c ourt

a pp ly § 2 B 1

. 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ) if

So c o lo v it c h b r o u g h t $ 2 , 0 0 0 to s e n te n c in g . T h e f u lf il lm e n t o f th e c o n d it ion, howeve r, did not require the g overnme nt to argue for a two-leve l r eduction. Nor did the “spirit” of the ag ree ment require any thing more . Although the g overnme nt was in the best position to know the pr ov ab le amount o f l o ss, Socolovitch was in the best position to know the actual amount of los s– i.e. , the total amount of which he defr auded his c ustomers. Socolovitch would not have e ntere d int o the ple a a g re e me nt if he did no t knowthat th e a c tua l amou nt o f l os s e xce e de d $ 70 ,0 00

. Ye t, 5United States v. Soc olovitch

No. 09-5218

10 Socolovitch ap p ar en t l y

now believe s that the ag ree ment was unfa ir. A re view of the rec ord

c on vin c e s u s th a t th is is no t th e case . Pur su ant t o th e ple a a g re e me nt, the g ov e rnme nt a g re e d to

rec ommend–and did re commend–a sentenc e at the low end of the Guidelines rang e despite the fac t that the a mou

nt of los s wa s a t the high e nd of the $3 0, 00 0 to $7 0, 00 0 ra ng e . I n light of t his

c on c e ssi on

fr om t he g ov e rnme nt, a s we ll as the se nte nc e a c tua lly imp os e d b y

the c ourt , th e ba

rg a in was not a ba d one for

Socolovitch. III

. Finally , Socolovitch argues that the re cord doe s not adequately support the court’s finding that the amount of loss was $63,575.50. We re view the calculation of the amount of l oss–a fa ctual finding–for c lear

err or. See U

nited States v. Jordan , 544 F.3d 656, 671 ( 6th Cir. 2008). He re , the PSR ide nti fi e d tw e nty -s e ve n vic tim s by the ir ini tia ls and , fo r e a c h, lis te d th e date of los s and the amou nt o f l os s. Ul tim a te ly , th e g ov e rnme nt w a s una ble to c on ta c t fi ve of

the vic tim s prior to sentenc ing, a

nd their losses wer e re moved, bring ing the total to $63,575.50. The full name s of the tw e nty -t

wo vic tim s and

the amou nt o f l os s attr ibuta

ble to e a c h w a s li ste d o n th e jud g me nt. Socolovitch s ti p u late d th a t, if c a ll e d to th e s ta n d , G in te r w o u ld h a v e te s ti f ie d th a t h e or the prosec utor persona lly

contac ted t wenty -one of the victims and verif ied the amount of the ir loss and that the amount of l oss attributed t o the twenty -sec ond victim was obtained fr om a complaint filed with the Be tter B usiness Bur eau. T hus , t h e p re p ondera nce of the evidenc e supports the district court’s de termination that the amount of loss wa s $63,575.50, and we find Socolovitch’s argument to be without merit. See U nited States v. Triana , 468 F.3d 308, 321 ( 6th Cir. 2006).United States v. Soc olovitch

No. 09-5218

11 I V. F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m.