Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John William PLOETZ, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-12
Citations: 16 F. App'x 527
Docket Number: No. 00-2191
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John William PLOETZ, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 16
Pages: 527–528

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John William PLOETZ, Appellant.
No. 00-2191.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted June 7, 2001.
Decided June 12, 2001.
Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
John William Ploetz pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of engaging in monetary transactions in criminally derived property. At sentencing, the district court imposed enhancements based upon the value of funds, Ploetz's knowledge that the funds were proceeds of an illegal activity, and Ploetz's abuse of a position of trust; the court also granted Ploetz's departure motion based upon his diminished mental capacity. The court sentenced Ploetz to concurrent terms of 24 months imprisonment and three years supervised release on each count, and ordered him to pay $203,097 in restitution. On appeal, Ploetz challenges each of the enhancements, the extent of the court's departure, and the denial of his motion for departure based on post-offense rehabilitation; he also challenges the enhancements under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not err in imposing each enhancement, for the reasons stated by the district court; further, we do not review the extent of the departure granted or the discretionary decision to deny a departure for post-offense rehabilitation. See United States v.. Dutcher, 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir.1993); United States v. Correa, 167 F.3d 414, 417 (8th Cir.1999). We also reject Ploetz's Apprendi challenge, as imposition of the enhancements did not result in a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum authorized for his crimes. See United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 933 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 600, 148 L.Ed.2d 513 (2000).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The HONORABLE JOHN R. TUNHEIM, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.