2007 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 4-4-2007 

# U SA v . Levine P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-1761

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . L evine " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1361. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1361NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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. 04- 1761

_______________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OE N ATH AN LEVI NE, 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

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 01- cr - 00480) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D enni s M . C avana ugh

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

M ar ch 27, 2007 B e f o re : F IS H E R , J O R D A N a n d R O T H , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed A pr i l 4, 2007)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________L evine’ s O pen i ng B ri ef ch al l eng ed h i s sent ence o f i m pri sonm ent on t w o g round s: 1 t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l yus ed a s ent ence enhanc ementt hatfi r s tappea r ed i n a U n ited S tate s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l p u b lish e d a f ter th e e n d o f

th e c o n sp ira c yto w hi ch he pl eade d gui l t y , and thatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l yi ncr eas ed hi s s ent ence beca us e of the amount of l os s t o t he vi ct i m s even though t hatl os s fi gur e w as bas ed on fac t s t hatw er e notadmi t t ed byhi m orpr oved t o a j ur y . H ow ever , on J une 8, 2006, L evi ne fi l ed a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw bot h of t hes e ar gum ent s , beca us e hi s s ent ence of im p ri s o n m e n t h a d e x p ir e d , a n d to re ly so le ly o n h is S u p p le m e n ta l B ri e f. W e c o n stru e th is m oti on as a m oti on t o st ri ke. L evine’ s m oti on w i l l be g rant ed, and w e w i l l on l yadd res s t he ar gum enthe has r ai s ed i n hi s Suppl ement al B r i ef. 2 J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . J oe N athan Levi ne appe al s t he or derof t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s eys ent enci ng hi m t o i m pr i s onm ent and r equi r i ng t hathe pay 1 r es t i tut i on. Speci fi cal l y , L evi ne ar gues t hatt he r es t i tut i on or der , w hi ch r el i ed on fa ct s not es t abl i s hed bya j ur yatt r i al oradmi t t ed byhi m , vi ol at ed the rul e es t abl i s hed i n t he Supr eme C our tcas es of Appr endiv. N ew Jer s ey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ), B l akl ey v . W as hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , and U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . T he g o v ern m en t, h o w ev er, ha s m o v ed fo r sum m aryaf firm an ce o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er, r el y i ng on ourr ece nten banc deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Leahy , 4 3 8 F . 3 d 3 2 8 (3d C ir . 2006) . For t he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l gr antt he governm ent ’ s m ot i on. I. O n O c to b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 , L e v in e a g re e d to p lea d g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp irin g “ to u tter a n d p o ss e ss f

o rg e d se c u rities o f

o rg a n iza tio n s, n a m e lyp e rso n a l ch e c k s o f m u lti p le in s titu tio n s , c o n tr a ry to 1 8 U .S .C . § 5 1 3 (a ), i n v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 .”3

D ur i ng L evi ne’ s pl ea he ar i ng, t he pr os ecut orques t i oned Levi ne onl yon t he fa ct s of t he offe ns e, and as ked no ques t i ons r egar di ng t he amount of l os s s us t ai ned as a r es ul tof t he offe ns e. I n a s ubs equents ent enci ng hear i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d L evi ne t o a t er m of t hi r t y - fi ve mont hs i n pr i s on, and or der ed hi m t o payr es t i tut i on i n t he amount of $ 1 3 3 ,7 1 3 .5 0 . II. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , the S u p re m e C o u rt re a f f irm e d its h o ld in g in Appr endi v. N ew Jer s ey , sta tin g th a t “[ a ]n yf a c t (o th e r th a n a p rio r c o n v ictio n ) w h ich is n e c e ss a ryto s uppor ta s ent ence exce edi ng t he maxi m um author i zed byt he fa ct s es t abl i s hed bya pl ea of gui l t yora j ur yver di ctm us tbe admi t t ed byt he def endantorpr oved t o a j ur ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . at 2 4 4 . L e v in e a ss e rts th a t th e ru le a n n o u n c e d in Ap p re n d i and B oo ker m ustapp l yt o rest i tuti on orders , and t hat the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s r es t i tut i on or derw as t hus i m pr operbeca us e the governm entdi d notes t abl i s h t he appr opr i at e amount of r es t i tut i on t hr ough hi s admi s s i on orbypr oof t o a j ur ybey ond a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. W e r ece nt l yaddr es s ed thi s i s s ue i n ouren banc deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Leahy , w her ei n w e s t at ed that“bec aus e, i n ourvi ew , r es t i tut i on . . . i s nott he type of c r i m i nal p u n ishm en t th at ev o k es S ixth A m en d m en t pro tecti o n u n d er B ooker , w e conc l ude thatt he amount a def

endantm us tr es t or e t o hi s orhervi ct i m need notbe admi t t ed byt he defe ndantorpr oved t o a j ur ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Leahy , 4 3 8 F .3 d a t 3 3 1 .4

L evi ne admi t s t hathi s ar gum ent s ar e di r ect l ycontr aryt o ourdeci s i on i n Leahy , an d th a t he i s as ki ng t hi s C our tt o r econs i deri t s deci s i on i n t hatcas e. B eca us e w e ar e bound by t he en ba nc dec i s i on i n Leahy , w hi ch di r ect l ycontr ol s t hi s cas e, w e w i l l gr antt he governm ent ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryaff i r m ance . III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, L e v in e ’s M o tio n to S trik e h is O p e n in g B rie f a n d R e ly s ol el yon hi s Suppl ement al B r i ef w i l l be gr ant ed, and the governm ent ’ s M ot i on for Sum m aryA ffi r m ance w i l l be gr ant ed.