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 4-19-2005 

# U SA v . King 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 . 03-4715

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 . Kin g " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1338. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1338NO T PRECEDENTI 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: 03- 4715

_________________________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. L OR E NZ O M . KI NG, A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C r i m . N o. 03- cr - 00122) D i s tr i ctC our t : H on. G us t ave D i amond, C hi ef J udge

A r gued: Sept ember21, 2004 B efor e: M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge, and R O SE N N and W E I S, Seni orC i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 25, 2005)

_________________________ K A R E N S. G E R L A C H ( A r gued) O ffi ce of Feder al Publ i c D efe nder 1001 L i bertyA venue 1450 L i bertyC ent er Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 A t t orneyforA ppel l ant BO NN I E R. SCHLU ETER2

K E L L Y R . L A B B Y ( A r gued) O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 700 G r antSt r eet , Sui t e 400 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 14219

____________________ OP I NI ON

____________________ P E R C UR I AM L o re n z o K in g a p p e a ls th e ju d g m e n t o f se n ten c e th a t w a s e n ter e d f o llo w in g h is gui l typl ea t o t w o count s of fe der al i ncome t ax eva s i on. H e ar gues thatthe s ent enci ng j udge err ed i n appl y i ng a s ophi s t i cat ed means enhanc ementunderthe Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s , a n d th a t th e ju d g e im p ro p e rl yre f u s e d to c o n s id e r a s e n te n c e o f p ro b a tio n . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf

o l l o w, we wi l l r e ma n d f o rr e s e n t e n c i n g p u r s u a n tt o th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s r ece ntpr onouncement s i n U nited S tates v. B oo ker, 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 (2 0 0 5 ). I. F ACTS AN D P ROCEDURAL H I ST ORY D ur i ng 1996 and 1997, K i ng per form ed comput ercons ul t i ng s ervi ces underthe companyname “K _Sy s t ems, I nc. ” I n 1996 and 1997, K i ng earned $80, 000 and $96, 000, r es pect i vel y , as a comput ercons ul t ant . H e fa i l ed t o r eportthati ncome and w as ther eaf t er char ged w i th evas i on of fe der al i ncome t axes i n vi ol at i on of 26 U . S. C . § 7201. Fol l ow i ng i nd i ct m ent, K i ng enter ed a p l ea agreem ent i n w hich he st i pu l at ed thatthe tax l oss r es ul t i ng fr om hi s evas i on w as gr eat erthan $23, 500 butl es s than $40, 000. T hi s y i el ded aW e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he 1 m eani ng and cons truct i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , butr evi ew under l y i ng fac tual d eterm ination s fo r clear e rror o n ly . Itsh o u ld also b e n o ted th at U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (200 5), has setforth a n ew st and ard for appe l l at e revi ew of sen t ences: “r evi ew forunr eas onabl e[ne s s ] . ” Id . at 76 5 (bra ck ets i n o ri g inal). 3 bas e off ens e l evel of tw el ve underthe appl i cabl e s ent enci ng gui del i ne. A pp. 25. T he Pr eSent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport( PSR ) r ecomm ended a tw o- l evel enhanc ementforus i ng s ophi s t i cat ed means t o acc om pl i s h the off ens e, and a tw o- l evel dow nw ar d adj us t m entfor a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty . P S R a t 6 . T h e re su lti n g a d ju ste d G u id e lin e ra n g e w a s te n to s i x t e e n mo n th s wi th i n c a r c e r a t i o n f o ra tl e a s to n e - h a l f

o f th e t e n - mo n th mi n i mu m. U . S. S. G . ch. 5, pt s . A , C ( 1997) . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d K i ng t o fi ve m onths of conc urr enti m pr i s onm enton eac h count , fol l ow ed bya thr ee- y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. A pp. 73- 4. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. 1 II. D I SC US SI ON A ft erthe D i s tr i ctC our tacc ept ed K i ng’ s gui l typl ea a nd i m pos ed a s ent ence , the Supr eme C our tdeci ded U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker . B r i efl ys t at ed, the C our trul ed thatany fac tnotadmi t t ed bya def endantorpr oven bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt o the fa ctfi nder coul d notbe us ed t o i ncr eas e a de fenda nt ’ s s ent ence bey ond the maxi m um s ent ence t hat w oul d have otherw i s e appl i ed. “The C our thel d that18 U . S. C . § 3553( b) ( 1) , the pr ovi s i on of the Sent enci ng R eform A ctthatm akes the G ui del i nes m andat ory , w as [uncons t i tut i onal ] and thati tm us tbe s ever ed and e xci s ed [f r om the G ui del i nes ] . ” U ni t ed4

Stat es v. O r daz , 3 9 8 F .3 d 2 3 6 , 2 3 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Fol l ow i ng thatdeci s i on, K i ng as ked t o be r es ent ence d pur s uantt o B ookereven though he had c om pl et ed s ervi ng hi s s ent ence of i ncar cer at i on and had be gun hi s per i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e. Si nce the D i s tr i ctC our tvi ew ed the G ui del i nes as m andat oryw hen i tdeci ded upon an a ppr opr i at e s ent enci ng r ange, w e w i l l vaca t e K i ng’ s s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i th B ooker . O n re m a n d , the D istric t C o u rt w ill e x e rc ise its d isc re tio n a n d f a sh io n a se n ten c e b a se d u p o n a ll o f th e se n ten c in g f

a c to rs it deem s r el evan tt o an app ropri at e sanct i on for K i ng . H ow ever, si nce the cou rtm ayw i sh t o cons i derfac t or s pr evi ous l yi ncorpor at ed i nt o the G ui del i nes ’ s ophi s t i cat ed means enhanc ement , w e mustneverthel es s r es ol ve K i ng’ s cl ai m thatthe courtcan notcons i der the means byw hi ch he c om m i t t ed hi s cr i m es beca us e hi s convi ct i on fort ax eva s i on al r eadyi ncorpor at es the s ent enci ng fac t or s thatw er e partof the s ophi s t i cat ed means e n h a n c e m e n t. A . T h e S o p h ist icate d M ea n s E n h a n ce m en t. In h is o p e n in g b rie f

, K in g c laim s th a t th e so p h istica ted m e a n s e n h a n c e m e n t sh o u ld notbe us ed i n det erm i ni ng a s ent enci ng r ange be caus e i tr es t s on the s ame conductthat e s t a b l i s h e d th e s u b s t a n t i v e o f f e n s e o f f e l o n yt a x e v a s i o n u n d e r2 6 U. S . C. § 7 2 0 1 . He m ai nt ai ns thatthe s ophi s t i cat ed means enhanc ementas appl i ed t o i ncome t ax eva s i on appl i es onl yt o act i ons thatconce al the off ens e. A ccor di ng t o K i ng, conductthat c o n s t i tu t e s th e o f

f e n s e c a n n o ta l s o s u p p o r ta s e n t e n c i n g e n h a n c e me n t . Ki n g a l s o c l a i ms5

thatthe s ophi s t i cat ed means enhanc ementw as i m pr operbeca us e hi s act i ons w er e nei ther

“ s o p h is tic a te d ” n o r “ e x tr a o rd in a ry” a s re q u ir e d u n d e r t h e G u id e lin e s .

1. T he A f

f i rm at i ve A ct R equi rem ent U nder 26 U . S. C . § 7201 T he fe l onyof t ax eva s i on r equi r es : ( 1) w i l l ful nes s ; ( 2) the exi s t ence of a t ax defi ci ency ; and ( 3) an af fi r m at i ve ac tcons t i tut i ng evas i on oratt empt ed eva s i on of the t ax. Sans one v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 380 U . S. 343, 351 ( 1965) ( ci t i ng Spi es v. U ni t ed Stat es , 317 U . S. 492 ( 1943) ) . W e have pr evi ous l ys t at ed thatone af fi r m at i ve ac tal one ca n s at i s fyt he a f f ir m a tiv e a c t r e q u ir e m e n t. U n itedS ta tes v . M

c G ill , 964 F. 2d 222, 229 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C onl ey , 826 F. 2d 551 ( 7th C i r . 1987) ) . A defe ndantcomm i t s t he re q u ire d o v e rt a c t w h e n e n g a g in g in “ a n yc o n d u c t, th e lik e lye f f e c t o f w h ich w o u ld b e to m i s l ead orconce al . ” Spi es , 317 U . S. at499. T hi s i ncl udes , buti s notl i m i t ed t o, us i ng “fa l s e i nvoi ces ordocument s . . . conce al m entof as s et s orcover i ng s our ces of i ncome, [and] handl i ng of one’ s aff ai r s t o avoi d m aki ng the r ecor ds us ual i n tr ans act i ons of the ki nd. ” I d. H ow ever , the af

fi r m at i ve ac tr equi r ementcan a l s o be s at i s fi ed bya w i l l ful om i s s i on. A ccor di ngl y , the f ailure t o fi l e a t ax r eturn can c ons t i tut e the af fi r m at i ve ac t re q u ir e d u n d e r § 7 2 0 1 . U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i cco , 2 7 7 F . 3 d 3 3 9 , 3 5 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). H er e, K i ng fr audul ent l yr epr es ent ed hi s bus i nes s es t o be corpor at i ons . I n one in s ta n c e , h e u s e d a f

a ls e ta x id e n tif

ic a tio n n u m b e r t o c o rr o b o ra te th e m is re p re s e n ta tio n . H e al s o acc ept ed paym ent s i n t he form of che cks m ade pa y abl e t o hi s w i fe ort o fi ct i t i ous corpor at i ons r atherthan t o hi m s el f. H e had hi s w i fe c as h chec ks atchec k cas hi ng6

fac i l i t i es t o avoi d t he form al i t i es and document at i on thatw oul d r es ul tfr om depos i t i ng c h e c k s in a b a n k a c c o u n t. In a d d iti o n , K in g d isc a rd e d tax f o rm s th a t th e IR S iss u e d to h is w ife, an d h e w il lfu ll yfa il ed to f il e h is t ax return s o r pa yinco m e tax es f o r th e tax y ea rs 1 9 9 6 a n d 1 9 9 7 . A s noted, K i ng i nsi st s that the D i stri ctC ou rtcou l d n ot r el yup on anyof these a f f irm a tiv e a c ts o f

tax e v a sio n to e n h a n c e h is s e n ten c e f o r u sin g so p h istica ted m e a n s to a c c o m p lish h is c rim e . W e c a n n o t ag re e . “A n a f f irm a tiv e a c t [ u n d e r 2 6 U .S .C . § 7 2 0 1 ] is anythi ng done t o m i s l ead the governm entorconce al funds t o avoi d paym entof an admi t t ed and a ccur at e def i ci ency . . . . T he off

ens e i s compl et e w hen a s i ngl e w i l l ful actof evas i on has occurr ed. ” Mc G ill , 9 6 4 F . 2 d at 23 0 . T h u s, alth o u g h the f ail u re to rep o rt i ncome orpayt axes m us tbe ac compani ed byanotheraff i r m at i vel yevas i ve ac tt o s at i s fy the r equi r ement s of 26 U . S. C . § 7201, w e ca n nots aythatK i ng’ s act i ons coul d nots at i s fy th a t r e q u ir e m e n t. S e e g e n e r a lly S p ie s , 3 1 7 U .S . 4 9 2 (1 9 4 3 ), a n d Mc G ill , 964 F. 2d at233 ( “B anki ng underthe name of one’ s s pous e s at i s fi es the af fi r m at i ve ac tr equi r ementunder § 7 2 0 1 .” ). 2 . S o p h is ti c a te d M e a n s u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 T 1 .1 K i ng fur thercl ai m s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcan onl ycons i deract s comm i t t ed af t er the fa ct( t o conce al the t ax eva s i on) , i n deci di ng w hethert o enhanc e hi s s ent ence , and that d o e s n o te x t e n d t o e a r l i e rc o n d u c tth a ts e r v e s o n l yt o c o n c e a l u n r e p o r t e d i n c o me . He ar gues that“[our ] appl i cat i on of U . S. S. G . § 2T 1. 1( b) ( 2) confi r m s the i ndi cat i on i n the backgr ound comm ent ary , that‘ s ophi s t i cat ed means ’ does notr efe rt o act s w hi ch c re a teK i ng i s r el y i ng upon t he 2003 ver s i on of the s ent enci ng G ui del i nes . T he PSR that 2 w as pr epar ed fors ent enci ng s t at es w i thoutcontr adi ct i on thatK i ng’ s s ent ence w as contr ol l ed bythe 1997 G ui del i nes . PSR at5. 7 the off ens e. I ns t ead ‘ s ophi s t i cat ed means ’ r efe r s t o act s w hi ch go above and bey ond t he o f f e n se , an d in f

a c t conce alan off

ens e w hi ch al r eadyoccurr ed. ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at24 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . H e r es t s thi s ar gum enti n l ar ge partupon U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i cco , 2 7 7 F 3 d 3 3 9 (3 d C ir ., 2 0 0 2 ), a n d A p p lic a tio n N o te 4 to U .S .S .G . § 2 T 1 .1 . K i ng al s o ar gues that“[t ] he gui del i ne i t s el f pr ovi des no gui dance on w hat cons t i tut es ‘ s ophi s t i cat ed means , ’ butA ppl i cat i on N ot e 4 fi l l s thatgap. I tdefi nes s ophi s t i cat ed means as conductw hi ch i s ‘ es peci al l yi ntr i cat e, ’ and w hi ch cons t i tut es ‘c o n c e a lm e n t o f

a n o f f e n se .’” A p p e llan t’s B r. at 2 3 -4 . H e th e n q u o tes e x a m p les se t f o rth in th e A p p lica tio n N o te a s f o llo w s: Sophi s t i cat ed M eans E nhance m ent . - - Forpurpos es of subsect i on (b) (2) , "sophis t i cat ed m eans" m eans e sp e c ia lly c o m p lex o r e sp e c ia lly in tric a te o ffen se c o n d u c t p e rta in in gto the exe cuti on or con cealm ent of an off ense . C onducts uch as hi di ng as s et s ortr ans act i ons , orboth, thr ough the us e of fi ct i t i ous ent i t i es , corpor at e s hel l s , oroffs hor e fi nanci al accou nts ordi nari l yi nd i cat es sophis t i cat ed m eans. A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 2 4 (q u o tin g U .S .S .G . § 2 T 1 .1 , c m t. n . 4 (2 0 0 3 )) (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) . H ow ever , K i ng’ s ar gum enti s underm i ned bythe veryl anguage upon w hi ch he r el i es . T he A ppl i cat i on N ot e s t at es thatthe enha ncementappl i es t o “conduc tpert ai ni ng t o the exe cut i on orconce al m entof the off ens e. ” Id . T hi s cl ear l yi s notl i m i t ed t o conduct w hi ch onl yconce al s the off ens e af t eri t s compl et i on as K i ng cl ai m s . Sect i on 2T 1. 1 of 2 the 1997 G ui del i nes al s o cont ai ns a tw o- l evel enhanc ementfors ophi s t i cat ed means , andA tsent encing, the A ssi st ant U nit ed S t at es A t t orneyt old the co urt , “I vi ew ed itas a 3 g a rd e n v a rie tye v a sio n c a se ,” a n d th e c o u rt a g re e d sta tin g , “I th in k it i s a g a rd e n v a rie ty evas i on cas e. ” A pp. 67. 8 th e f o llo w in g e x p lan a tio n :

“Sophi s t i cat ed means , ” as us ed i n s ubs ect i on ( b) ( 2) , i ncl udes conductthati s m or e compl ex ordemonstr at es gr eat er i n tr i c a c yo rp l a n n i n g th a ta r o u t i n e t a x - e v a s i o n c a s e . An enhanc ementw oul d be appl i ed, forexampl e, w her e the defe ndantus ed off

s hor e bank a ccount s , ortr ans act i ons th ro u g h c o rp o ra te s h e lls o r f ic titio u s e n titie s . U . S. S. G . § 2T 1. 1, cmt . n. 4 ( 1997) . T her e i s no di s t i nct i on betw een the exe cut i on of the offe ns e and the s ubs equentconce al m entof i t , and K i ng’ s att empt t o for ge s uch a di s t i nct i on i s unconvi nci ng. K i n g a l s o m a i n t a i n s th a th i s c a s e a m o u n t s o n l y t o a r o u t i n e o ra “ g a r d e n v a r i e t y” t ax eva s i on cas e and ther efor e an e nhance m entfors ophi s t i cat ed means w as not appr opr i at e. T hi s ar gum enti s notw i thoutfor ce. B oth the pr os ecut orand the D i s tr i ct C our tr efe r r ed t o t hi s cas e as a “ga r den var i ety ” t ax eva s i on cas e ats ent enci ng. 3 H ow ever , thi s rhet or i cal char act er i zat i on of K i ng’ s conductdoes notcontr ol the s e n te n c in g c o u rt ’s v ie w o f K in g ’s c o n d u c t. T h e G u id e lin e s p ro v id e se v e ra l ex a m p les o f c o n d u c t th a t ca n c o n stitu te

“ so p h istica ted m e a n s.” T h a t co n d u c t in c lu d e s u se o f o f f sh o re b a n k a c c o u n ts, c o rp o ra te s hel l s orfi ct i t i ous ent i t i es . W e el abor at ed upon thi s i n U ni t ed Stat es v. V

eks l er , 62 F. 3d 544 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . I n V eks l er , defe ndantM cN aught on and a c o- defe ndantw er e i nvol ved i n a s cheme t o evade s t at e and f eder al t axes on the s al e of oi l thatcoul d be us ed both as hom e hea t i ng oi l and di es el fuel . Sal es of hom e hea t i ng oi l w er e nott axed, butdi es el fuel9

w as subj ectt o st at e and fede ral t axati on . M cN aug hton w as conv i ct ed o f usi ng a “dais y chain” schem e con si st i ng of “a ser i es of p aper transact i on s throug h n um erous com pan i es, s o m e o f w h ic h w e re la rg e ly f

ic titio u s ” to a v o id ta x a tio n o n th e s a le o f o il. V eks l er , 62 F . 3 d at 54 7 . T h e tran sac ti o n s inv o lved ficti ti o u s co m p an ies, inclu d ing sh o rt -l ived “b u rn compani es ” thatw er e us ed t o di s gui s e the natur e of va r i ous s al es of oi l and cr eat e the a p p e a ra n c e th a t a p p lic a b le ta x e s h a d b e e n p a id . Id . W e a ff irm ed the D istri ct C o u rt ’s a p p lica tio n o f

th e so p h istica ted m e a n s e n h a n c e m e n t re ly in g in p a rt o n th e f a c t th a t “A ppl i cat i on not e 4 t o s ect i on 2T 1. 1 s t at es that‘ s ophi s t i cat ed means ’ . . . enhanc ement w oul d be appl i ed, forexampl e, w her e the def endantus ed . . . tr ans act i ons thr ough corpor at e s hel l s orfi ct i t i ous ent i t i es . ” Id . a t 5 5 0 (s e c o n d e llip s is in o ri g in a l) . A l though w e ce r t ai nl ydo nots ugges tthatK i ng’ s offe ns e w as near l yas compl i cat ed as the dai s ychai n ati s s ue i n V eks l er , o u rh o l d i n g th e r e n e v e r th e l e s s c o n f i r ms that u sing co rpo rate sh ell s o r ficti ti o u s en ti ti es to av o id tax es c an justi fya m o re se v ere s ent ence than w oul d be appr opr i at e otherw i s e. K i ng cl ear l yus ed dumm ycorpor at i ons and fi ct i t i ou s ent i t i es t o ev ade p ay i ng t axes. T he ana l y s i s i n V

eksl er ther efor e s uppor t s the enha ncementher e eve n though K in g ’s s c h e m e d o e s n o t co m e c lo se to th e so p h istica tio n a n d c o m p lex ityw e a d d re ss e d in V eks l er . T o par aphr as e the courti n U n itedS ta tes v . Fu rk in , 1 1 9 F .3 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 8 4 -8 5 (7 th C i r. 19 97 ), “[t ]he soph i st i cat ed m eans en han cem ent i n thi s case w as based o n [K i ng ’s ] con du ctrel at i ng t o the every dayop erat i on of the bu si ness, such as u si ng fi ct i t i ou s nam es, fai l i ng t o keep r ecor ds conce r ni ng i ncome, [and] us i ng cas h [tr ans act i ons ] . ” W e ci t edT h e c lose st th at U . S . S . G . § 2 T 1 . 1 co m es to su ch a d ist inction is i ts use o f th e w o rd 4 “unus ual l y ” t o qual i fythe t erm “s ophi s t i cat ed ef for t s ” i n the B ackgr ound por t i on of the C o m m e n tar y . (“A lth o u g h tax o f f e n se s a lw a y s in v o lv e so m e p lan n in g , u n u su a lly s ophi s t i cat ed ef

for t s t o conce al the off

ens e dec r eas e the l i kel i hood of det ect i on and ther efor e w arr antan addi t i onal s anct i on fordet err ence purpos es . ”) U . S. S. G . § 2T 1. 1, cmt . backgr ound. 10 Fu rk in i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. C i anci , 154 F. 3d 106 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . I n addi t i on, w e uphel d a s ophi s t i cat ed means enhanc ementundera new ver s i on of the G ui del i nes i n G r i cco , s upr a. I n thatcas e, G r i cco a r gued thatthe enha ncementonl yappl i ed t o the embezzl ement s cheme he had be en convi ct ed of, and nott o s ubs equenteff or t s t o evade t axes on the embezzl ed money . W e r ej ect ed thatar gum entand uphel d the enha ncements t at i ng: “[the] e v id e n c e su p p o rts a f

in d in g o f so p h istica ted c o n c e a lm e n t th ro u g h . . . [th e ] u se o f c a sh to avoi d r eport i ng r equi r ement s and the us e of f ami l ym ember s ’ names t o hi de as s et s . ” I d. a t 3 6 0 -6 1 . W e re a lize th a t G r i cco al s o i nvol ved eva s i on on a much l ar gers cal e, butthatdoes notal t erouranal y s i s . T he G ui del i nes do notcondi t i on appl i cat i on of the s ophi s t i cat ed m e a n s e n h a n c e m e n t o n th e a m o u n t o f th e lo s s o r t h e s iz e o r d u ra tio n o f th e s c h e m e . R ather , the amountof the t ax l os s i s addr es s ed s epar at el yi n U . S. S. G . § 2T 4. 1. 4

B. K i ng’ s Se nt e nc e Pro pe r l y I nc l ude s I nc ar c e r at i on. K in g a lso c laim s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d a s a m a tter o f law in re f

u sin g to cons i derthe ent i r e r ange of avai l abl e s ent ence s . A ccor di ng t o K i ng, the j udge harbor ed a per s onal bi as agai ns tt ax eva der s , one thatcaus ed the j udge t o i m pos e a s ent ence of i ncarcerat i on du e t o a p ers on al po l i cyof n ot consi deri ng probati on i n such cases. H e al so m ai nt ai ns thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s bi as t ow ar d i m pr i s onm entt ai nt ed i t s anal y s i s of the11

so p h istica ted m e a n s e n h a n c e m e n t. A b se n t th a t en h a n c e m e n t, th e g u id e lin e ra n g e w o u ld have a l l ow ed fora pur el ypr obat i onarys ent ence . K i ng cl ai m s the courtappl i ed the enhanc ementi n or dert o r eac h a gui del i ne r ange thatw oul d al l ow fori m pr i s onm entand thus acc om m odat e the court ’ s per s onal bi as i n favorof i ncar cer at i ng t ax eva der s . T hat ar gum enti s now m ootbeca us e K i ng has s erved the cus t odi al por t i on of hi s s ent ence . H o w e v e r, b e c a u se it rais e s s e rio u s q u e stio n s a b o u t th e se n ten c in g p ro c e ss , w e w ill r es pond t o i ti n t he i nt er es tof j us t i ce. A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , the c o u rt d e c lar e d : I do notbel i eve, as a gene r al rul e, pr obat i on i s appr opr i at e fori ncome t ax ev ad ers. . . . I do n ’tb eli ev e tha t I h av e b ee n g iving inco m e tax ev ad ers pr obat i on. B uti f I have, even that ’ s an abe rr at i on on m ypart . I am not g o in g to c o n tin u e it h e re to d a y . A pp. 60- 61. K i ng ar gues thatthi s and s i m i l ars t at ement s demonstr at e the s ent enci ng j udge’ s s tr i ctadher ence t o a per s onal pol i cyand thatthe j udge r efus ed t o conductthe anal y s i s r equi r ed under§ 3553( a) . K i ng’ s ar gum enti s , how ever , underm i ned bythe f o llo w in g sta tem e n t o f

th e se n ten c in g ju d g e a t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g : W hatI cons i dert o be an a ppr opr i at e s ent ence i n the ca s e, t ent at i vel y , i s t en mont hs . . . . So, w haty ou oughtt o be addr es s i ng t o m e i s w hyI s houl dn’ ts ent ence y ourcl i entt o t en m onths . . . . [t ] hati s w her e I , t ent at i vel y , bel i eve i s an a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e . As I s a i d , i f y o u c a n c o n v i n c e me s om ehow thats ophi s t i cat ed means , w i thi n the meani ng of the a p p lic a tio n n o te s o f

th e g u id e lin e s , w e re n o t e m p lo y e d h e re . .

. i f y ou have s om ethi ng addi t i onal thathas notbeen made know n t o t he [c ] our tthr ough the pr es ent ence r eportorother document s , fi ne. A p p . 5 8 -5 9 . W e h a v e a lre a d ye x p lain e d w h ya so p h istica ted m e a n s e n h a n c e m e n t co u ld12

pr oper l ybe appl i ed, and thatthe r es ul t i ng s ent enci ng r ange i ncl uded a pe r i od of in c a rc e ra tio n . N e v e rth e les s, th e se n ten c in g ju d g e c lea rlysta ted th a t h e w a s o p e n to ar gum entthatthe enha ncementw as notpr oper , and thata pr obat i onarys ent ence w oul d be appr opr i at e i ns t ead. T he court ’ s s t at ement s , t aken i n cont ext , demonstr at e thatthe j udge d id n o t b lin d ly se n te n c e K in g to a p e ri o d o f in c a rc e ra tio n b a s e d o n a p e rs o n a l b ia s . R ather , the courts t at ed i t s “t ent at i ve” c oncl us i on r egar di ng the s ent ence . T hatconcl us i on w as appr opr i at el y“bas ed on the pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eport , the natur e of the cr i m e, and the otherfac t or s know n t o t he [c ] our t . ” Id . A ccor di ngl y , w e r ej ectK i ng’ s ar gum ent th a t th e ju d g e ig n o re d th e d ic ta te s o f 1 8 U .S .C . 3 5 5 3 (a ). C ONC L US I ON Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence and r emand t he ca s e forr es ent enci ng. M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge, concurr i ng. I bel i eve thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yappl i ed the s ophi s t i cat ed means enhanc ementunderthe G ui del i nes . H ow ever , I w r i t e s epar at el ybeca us e I am concerned thatK i ng m ayw el l be corr ecti n ar gui ng thathi s s ent ence r es ul t ed, atl eas tpart i al l y , fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s per s onal bi as agai ns tt ax off ender s and thatthe court ’ s s ent ence w as dr i ven bythatpol i cyr atherthan the i ndi vi dual i zed c ons i der at i on m andat ed under18 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). I M yc o n c e r n i s b e s ti l l u s tr a t e d b ya b r i e f e x a mi n a t i o n o f

two c a s e s wh e r e we13

det erm i ned thata s ent enci ng j udge’ s per s onal bi as agai ns ta ca t egoryof cr i m i nal offe ns es in te rf e re d w ith th e ju d g e ’s a b ility to a c t a s a n u n b ia s e d d e c is io n m a k e r. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Tow ns end , 478 F. 2d 1072 ( 3d C i r . 1973) , the def endantw as convi ct ed of w i l l ful fai l ur e t o s ubm i tt o i nduct i on underthen- exi s t i ng dr aftl aw s . ( 50 U . S. C . A pp. § 462) . T ow ns end appe al ed, ar gui ng thatthe tr i al j udge had e rr ed by re f u sin g to re c u se h im se lf

g iv e n h is d e m o n stra b le b ias to w a rd p e rso n s c h a rg e d w ith vi ol at i ng the s el ect i ve s ervi ce l aw s . Pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1441, T ow ns end fi l ed an aff i davi ti n s uppor tof hi s att empt t o have the j udge di s qual i fyhi m s el f forbi as bas ed on sta tem e n ts th e ju d g e h a d m a d e d u rin g a p re trial c o n f e re n c e . A c c o rd in g to th e a f f id a v it: T he j udge s t at ed thathe s ent ence s al l s el ect i ve s ervi ce v io la to rs to th ir ty m o n th s in p ri s o n if th e ya re ‘g o o d p e o p le .’ T he j udge s t at ed thathe fe l ta dutyt o pr es s ur e cons ci ent i ous o b jectors into s u b m itti n g to ind u cti o n an d that a u n ifo rm thi r tym onths s ent ence w as the bes tw ayt o eff ectuat e that p o l i c y. T ow nsend , supra , at1073. In re v iew in g th e c o u rt’s r e f u sa l to re c u se , w e e x a m in e d th e law p e rta in in g to cons ci ent i ous obj ect or s and not ed C ongr es s ’ s cl eari nt ent i on t o notr equi r e cons ci ent i ous obj ect or s t o s erve i n combatas w el l as congr es s i onal i ns truct i on thatcons ci ent i ous o b j e c t o r s b e o r d e r e d t o p e r f o r m c i v i l i a n w o r k “ c o n tr i b u t i n g t o th e n a t i o n a l h e a l th , s a f e ty, o r i n te re s t,” a s o p p o s e d to im p ri s o n m e n t. I d. at1074 ( ci t i ng the Sel ect i ve Servi ce A ct , 50 U . S. C . § 456(

j ) ) . I n l i ghtof thatanal y s i s , w e conc l uded thatthe j udge’ s per s onal pol i cy of i m pos i ng thi r ty - m onth s ent ence s i n an ef for tt o “[pl ace ] pr es s ur e on cons ci ent i ous o b jec to rs” to su b m it t o in d u c tio n , ind ica ted a su f f icie n t “b e n t o f

m in d ” to w a rra n t a1 See PerC ur i am m aj or i tyopi ni on, not e 1. 1 14 re c u s a l. I d. Si m i l ar l y , i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. Thom

ps on , 483 F. 2d 527 ( 3d C i r . 1973) , T hom ps on w as convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng the Sel ect i ve Servi ce A ct . H e appe ar ed bef or e the s ame j udge w ho had r efus ed t o r ecus e i n Tow ns end . T h o m p so n also su b m itted a n af fid av itin su p p o rt of hi s r eques tthatthe j udge r ecus e hi m s el f ar gui ng thatthe j udge had a per s onal pol i cy forhandl i ng Sel ect i ve Servi ce A ctcas es thatpr ecl uded pr es i di ng overs uch ca s es w i th an unbi as ed and ope n m i nd. T he att ache d aff i davi tr ecount ed that , dur i ng a conve r s at i on w i th the j udge i n chamber s , the j udge had “ s t at ed thati n cas es of Sel ect i ve Servi ce v iolati o n , itis his po li cyto se n tenc e a ll v iolators to thirtym o n ths in p ri so n if th eyare good peopl e. ” Id . T he j udge mai nt ai ned thi s pol i cyeven though the appl i cabl e Sel ect i ve Ser vi ce l aw di d notm andat e a pr i s on s ent ence . O n appea l , w e hel d that“the per s onal bi as al l eged w as of s uch a na tur e and i nt ens i tyt o pr eventthe def endant , w hen convi ct ed, fr om obt ai ni ng a s ent ence uni nfl uence d bythe court ’ s pr ej udgm entconce rni ng Sel ect i ve Ser vi ce vi ol at or s gener al l y . ” I d. at528- 9. W e not ed that“a de fenda nti s ent i t l ed t o tr i al befo re a j ud ge w ho i s not bi ased ag ai nsthim atanypo i nt of the tr i al and , m ost i m por t ant l y , ats ent enci ng, ” and r emanded the ca s e fora new tr i al befor e a di ffe r ent ju d g e . I d. at529. A l though t hes e ca s es turn on i s s ues of r ecus al r atherthan abus e of di s cr et i on or unr eas onabl enes s i n i m pos i ng a s ent ence , theyneverthel es s couns el thata s ent enci ng 1 j udge mustdet erm i ne w hats ent ence i s appr opr i at e bas ed upon an i ndi vi dual i zed15

a ss e ss m e n t o f

n u m e ro u s f

a c to rs, in c lu d in g th o se re q u ire d u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ), an d th a t a s ent ence of i ncar cer at i on thati s s el ect ed s ol el ybeca us e of a s ent enci ng j udge’ s per s onal bias i s an abu se of d i scr et i on becau se i trefl ect s the sentenci ng cou rt ’s refusal t o ex erci se its d is c re tio n . See V

i nci v. C on sol i da t ed R ail C orp . , 927 F. 2d 287, 288 ( 6th C i r . 1991) (“T h e f ail u re to e x erc ise d iscreti o n ca n co n sti tute an ab u se o f d iscreti o n . ”). II D ur i ng K i ng’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng, the courtexpl i ci t l ys t at ed: “I do notbel i eve, as a gene r al rul e, pr obat i on i s appr opr i at e fori ncome t ax eva der s . ” W hen def ens e couns el su g g e ste d th a t m a n ytax e v a d e rs d o re c e iv e p ro b a tio n , the ju d g e re p lied :

T hen y ou hav e, and y ou r cl i ents hav e, been l uck ybecau se they hav en’ tcom e bef

or e m e. I don’ tbel i eve thatI have be en g iving inco m e tax ev ad ers p rob ati o n . B u t i f I h av e, ev en that’s an ab errati o n o n m yp art. I am n o t go ing to co n ti n u e ith ere to d a y . A p p . 6 0 -1 . (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h ere af ter, the ju d g e re it era ted h is disda in f o r sen tenc ing tax e v ad ers to p ro b a tio n , sta tin g th a t if h is p ro n o u n c e m e n t re g a rd in g tax e v a d e rs “ g iv e s y o u a n yb a sis foran appe al , then y ou s houl d t ake a n appea l and l etthe Thi r d C i r cui tt el l m e that ’ s not the w ayt o do i t . ” A pp. 63. I bel i eve w e s houl d acc eptthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s i nvi t at i on and r ei t er at e the pr i nci pl es es t abl i s hed underTow ns end and Thom ps on thatpr ecl ude i m pos i ng i ncar cer at i ve s ent ence s pur s uantt o a per s onal pol i cyw hen C ongr es s has author i zed a non- i ncar cer at i ve s ent ence . H er e, the s ent enci ng courtexpl ai ned w hyhe does notbel i eve i n i m pos i ng s ent ence s thatdo noti ncl ude i ncar cer at i on on per s ons convi ct ed of t ax16

evasi on . H e st at es:

I bel i eve thati ncome t ax eva s i on, i n or dert o have a nyki nd of d e te rr e n t e f

f e c t, m u s t in c lu d e s o m e k in d o f in c a rc e ra tio n . . . . [I ] ndi vi dual s w ho ar e i ncl i ned t o att empt t o evade and def eat inco m e tax es o u g h t t o k n o w that ev en tho u g h theyare p il lars of the comm uni ty , even though theydon’ thave a nypr i or r ecor d, theydon’ tgeta fi r s tbi t e atthatappl e. I bel i eve that i t ’ s an i m por t antpol i cym att er , an i m por t antm att eri n the i nt er es tof j us t i ce. ” A p p . 6 6 . M yc o n c e rn is n o t m iti g a ted b yth e c o u rt’s s e n ten c in g d isc re tio n th a t is n e w ly r ecogni zed i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 (2 0 0 5 ). B oo ker d o e s n o ta l l o w a s ent enci ng courtt o r efus e t o i m pos e a non- i ncar cer at i ve s ent ence thatw oul d otherw i s e be app ropri at e based sol el yup on the co urt ’s personal vi ew of a c at ego ryof o ffen ders. R ather , “the Feder al Sent enci ng A ct. . . r equi r es a s ent enci ng courtt o cons i der G u id e lin e s ra n g e s , s ee 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 4) ( Supp. 2004) . . . Sect i on 3553( a) r emai ns in e f f e c t, an d se ts f

o rth n u m e ro u s f

a c to rs th a t g u id e se n ten c in g . T h o se f a c to rs in tu rn w ill g u id e a p p e llate c o u rts, a s th e yh a v e in th e p a st, in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a se n ten c e is unr eas onabl e. ” B ooker , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 5 7 , 7 6 6 . I am reluc tant to co n clud e tha t a pe rson al po li cysu ch as m ayap p ea r on this reco rd ca n b e d ee m ed rea so n ab le i f itp rec lud es th e a p p rop ri ate e x erc ise o f a sen tenc ing co u rt ’s d is c re tio n .