Opinion ID: 4519363
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sentencing Hearing in February 2019

Text: At Emmanuel’s sentencing, the government and defense counsel agreed to a lower loss amount of $154,832.50 for Emmanuel, which included the $148,214 in intended loss from the unemployment-benefits fraud scheme and the $6,618.50 in checks in the bank fraud scheme. 3 This lowered loss amount reduced Emmanuel’s total offense level from 23 to 19. His criminal history category of I and offense level of 19 yielded a new advisory guidelines range of 30 to 37 months’ imprisonment. The district court adopted the revised guidelines calculations and advisory guidelines range. The government recommended a 36-month sentence, arguing that this was consistent with the total 36-month sentence imposed on Mathieu. The government highlighted that: (1) Emmanuel went to trial and did not accept responsibility; (2) Emmanuel recruited Bernadel into the fraud scheme; (3) Emmanuel’s loss amount was based on his actual use of personally identifying information, whereas Mathieu’s loss amount, while larger, was based on mere possession of personally identifying information; (4) Emmanuel had committed multiple types of fraud, including bank fraud, while his codefendants had not; and (5) the government 3 The $6,618.50 in checks in the bank fraud scheme is derived from Emmanuel’s two counterfeit checks in the amounts of $1,950 and $4,668.50. 8 Case: 19-10669 Date Filed: 03/25/2020 Page: 9 of 16 already had cut Emmanuel a significant break by agreeing to lower his loss amount. In response, Emmanuel again requested a sentence of time served, reiterating his prior downward-variance arguments. Emmanuel stressed that, in comparing his sentence to his codefendants’ sentences, the district court should not consider Mathieu’s and St. Louis’s sentences for the aggravated-identity-theft convictions because those convictions were subject to a consecutive 24-month statutory mandatory minimum sentence and defendant Emmanuel had been acquitted of that count. Defendant Emmanuel highlighted that, without that 24month sentence, Mathieu and St. Louis received, respectively, 12-month and timeserved sentences on their fraud conspiracy convictions. Emmanuel recognized his additional bank fraud conviction, but did not address his access-device-use conviction. He argued that his bank fraud conviction should not result in a greater sentence because: (1) his codefendants had already pled guilty by the time the grand jury charged him with that new count; and (2) it was unclear whether his codefendants also would have been charged with bank fraud had they proceeded to trial with him. Finally, Emmanuel allocuted. Ultimately, the district court articulated that it had considered the parties’ arguments, the PSR, the advisory guidelines range of 30 to 37 months, and the § 3553(a) factors. The district court sentenced Emmanuel to 30 months’ 9 Case: 19-10669 Date Filed: 03/25/2020 Page: 10 of 16 imprisonment on each of his three conviction counts, to run concurrently to each other. Emmanuel objected that his total “sentence was disparate compared to . . . the codefendants in [his] case.” The district court overruled the objection, finding that Emmanuel’s and his codefendants’ sentences were not disparate. The district court stated that it had considered Emmanuel’s and his codefendants’ “relative culpability.” The district court found that, while “Mr. Mathieu had a higher loss amount and perhaps [] was one of the most culpable” defendants, Emmanuel had brought Bernadel into the fraud scheme, Emmanuel’s loss amount was considerably higher than that of St. Louis, and Emmanuel went to trial. The district court also explained that it had considered the parties’ arguments, balanced all the § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Emmanuel at the low end of his advisory guidelines range. This is Emmanuel’s appeal.