Opinion ID: 547492
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Excessive Fine and Sentence

Text: 25
26 Beard's final argument is that the fine and sentence assessed by the district court were excessive and imposed without adequate reason. The court specifically refused to upwardly depart from the guidelines, but was satisfied to impose the maximum sentence allowable. 27 The sentencing guidelines specifically allow a court to take into account any information regarding the background, character, and conduct of the defendant in determining the actual sentence to impose. U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.4. In the instant case, the district court took into account the fact that Beard was a practicing attorney with a duty to the court, who violated a judicial trust by committing a fraud upon the court. We find these adequate and appropriate reasons for imposing the maximum sentence allowable under the Guidelines. Therefore, the district court did not err in imposing a twenty-seven month prison term. 28
29 The district court, following Guideline 5E4.2, calculated Beard's fine as a total amount of $103,371.35 consisting of: $68,500, the pecuniary gain to Beard for commission of the offense; $32,671.35, the cost of imprisonment; and $2,200, the costs of supervised release. The court reasoned that because $68,500 of the $175,000 was not returned to the court, that amount was gained by Beard through the commission of his offense. 30 Beard argues that including the $68,500 was improper because he received no gain from his offense. He claims that the entire amount of the fee check rightfully belonged to him and not the bankruptcy estate. Therefore, he concludes, there can be no pecuniary gain to him from keeping or spending his own money. 31 Beard has a valid argument. Guideline 5E4.2 provides that fines for individuals are to be calculated either from the fine ranges listed on the table in 5E4.2(c)(3) or on the basis of pecuniary gain to the defendant. The loss suffered by the victim does not enter into this calculation. 32 Unfortunately, the Guidelines do not define the term gain but merely state that the term is expected to be used flexibly and consistently with [its] use in the criminal code. U.S.S.G. Sec. 5E4.2 background comment. The criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3571, is equally devoid of a cognizable definition of gain. Therefore, it is up to the sentencing court to define the term as it applies to the particular case under consideration. One thing is clear: ownership of the funds is crucial to determining whether a defendant recognized pecuniary gain from his offense because a defendant cannot gain what he already owns. In this respect, calculation of the fine differs from calculation of the term of incarceration. 33 In the instant case, the district court did not address the status of the funds as being Beard's personal funds or as belonging to the bankruptcy estate. It should have. 34 If the funds properly belonged in the bankruptcy estate, then the amount Beard retained was a windfall and thus a gain as contemplated in Guideline 5E4.2. If however, the funds belonged to Beard and were outside of the bankruptcy estate, then Beard gained nothing by retaining his own money. That Beard withheld this amount from the court is irrelevant for purposes of assessing the fine, because the language of the Guideline permits the court to fine a defendant for his pecuniary gain and not for any losses caused by his offense. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 5E4.2(c). 35 As of this appeal, the bankruptcy court had not ruled on the ownership of the $175,000 fee check. If that court has determined that the funds belong solely to the bankruptcy estate, or should it so determine in the future, then the fine assessed in the district court would be proper. 3 If however, that court has determined that any portion of the funds belonged to Beard, or should it so determine in the future, the district court must recalculate Beard's fine based on the amounts belonging to Beard and to the estate respectively. We therefore vacate the district court's calculation and assessment of the fine. 36 The district court had the option when it fined Beard either to calculate his fine based on his pecuniary gain or to use the amounts provided in the table in Guideline 5E4.2(c), based on Beard's overall offense level. Section 5E4.2 is written in the disjunctive so it is clear that the sentencing court in its discretion may use either method to calculate the fine, depending on the court's findings. Therefore, we remand for the district court to recalculate Beard's fine either from the fine table in effect at the time of Beard's sentencing or based on Beard's pecuniary gain once the bankruptcy court determines the ownership status of the funds. 37 We find no compelling reasons to impose a lesser fine or waive the fine in its entirety. 38 For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED on all points except assessment of the fine. We VACATE the portion of the judgment covering the amount of the fine and REMAND for proceedings in conformity with this decision.