Opinion ID: 152714
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Custable

Text: Custable provides four reasons why his sentence is unreasonable. First, he complains that the presentence investigation report (PSR) overstated his offense level, which should have been six, and not seven. And so he asks us to remand so the district court can resentence him under the new, lower offense level. We typically review de novo the district court's sentencing procedures. United States v. Garrett, 528 F.3d 525, 527 (7th Cir.2008). Custable never objected in the district court to the base offense level, so we deem his arguments forfeited and review for plain error. Id. See also United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406 F.3d 845, 848-49 (7th Cir.2005). On plain error review, we first determine whether there was error, whether it was plain, and whether it affected substantial rights. Garrett, 528 F.3d at 527. If these criteria are met, we then have discretion to grant relief if the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Sawyer, 521 F.3d 792, 796 (7th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). Even if we were to remand Custable's case with instructions to reduce his base offense level, there is no reason to believe a correction would affect the sentence, so any error is harmless. See Garrett, 528 F.3d at 527. The PSR broke the counts against Custable into two groups, one composed of the fraud and contempt counts and the other containing the two obstruction counts. When a defendant is sentenced for more than one group of counts, the Guidelines prescribe the method whereby a court determines the combined offense level for the groups, with the goal of using the most serious offense as the starting point and provid[ing] incremental punishment for significant additional criminal conduct. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 3, pt. D, introductory cmt. Under these rules, when two groups of counts are both sufficiently serious such that the offense level for one group is only 5 to 8 levels less serious than that of the most serious group, the defendant's total offense level is raised by one level. See id. § 3D1.4(b). This is precisely the situation in Custable's case. As calculated by the PSR and adopted by the district court, the offense level for the group of fraud and contempt counts was forty-one, nine levels above that of the obstruction group, which was thirty-two. Reducing by one the offense level for his fraud counts will simply trigger the above grouping rule and result in the addition of a level to Custable's combined offense level, negating any reduction in the Guideline range. [1] See id. We have no reason to believe that an error that did not affect the Guideline range affected the district court's sentencing decision as the district court stated its intention to impose a sentence within the applicable Guideline range. Any error is thus harmless. We next turn to Custable's second claim, that the PSR impermissibly double-counted when it increased his offense level for violating a judicial order, id. § 2B1.1(b)(8)(c), and for obstructing justice, id. § 3C1.1. The rule against double-counting prevents a district court from imposing two or more upward adjustments within the same Guideline range when both are premised on the same conduct. United States v. Blum, 534 F.3d 608, 612 (7th Cir.2008) (citing United States v. Schmeilski, 408 F.3d 917, 919 (7th Cir.2005)). Here, the district court's application of both enhancements was not double counting because each was based on distinct conduct, one for transferring frozen funds in violation of a judicial order and the other for interfering with the SEC's investigation. Third, Custable argues that the district court failed to account for his cooperation with the government or adequately consider the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and that the court violated the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws by sentencing him under a later, harsher version of the Guidelines than that in effect at the time of the crimes. As a result, Custable says his sentence is unreasonable. As discussed above, we review the district court's sentencing procedures, including its consideration of the § 3553 factors de novo, United States v. Corson, 579 F.3d 804, 813 (7th Cir.2009), and the substantive reasonableness of Custable's sentence for abuse of discretion. Poetz, 582 F.3d at 837. In light of the Sentencing Guidelines' advisory nature, a district court must give meaningful consideration to the § 3553 factors, as well as the Guidelines range, and the sentence must be objectively reasonable in light of the statutory factors and the individual circumstances of the case. United States v. Shannon, 518 F.3d 494, 496 (7th Cir.2008). Rather than address each factor, the district court need only provide an adequate statement of its reasons why the selected sentence is appropriate. Id. (citing United States v. Harris, 490 F.3d 589, 597 (7th Cir.2007)). Though it ultimately imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range, the district court adequately considered the § 3553 factors and we do not find the sentence unreasonable. In addition to discussing its reasons at length during the sentencing hearing, the court provided a detailed written statement with its sentencing order. The court's statements indicate its consideration of Custable's cooperation with the government, which it termed substantial and extensive. It also considered Custable's family circumstances and acceptance of responsibility. The court's reasoned consideration of the § 3553 factors and the individual circumstances of Custable's case comports with its discretion to fashion a sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary to satisfy the objectives of the Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The mere fact that the defendant cooperated with the government did not bind the court to impose a lenient sentence. The court found significant Custable's history of unlawful financial dealings, his role as mastermind of the scheme, the level of planning required, and his failure to repatriate from an off-shore bank account the proceeds of his scheme. We do not find unreasonable its determination that these factors tipped the balance in favor of a within-Guidelines sentence. Finally, we dispose of Custable's argument that the court's reliance on the 2008 version of the Guidelines violates the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Custable claims that the 2008 Guidelines impose a more serious offense level, and thus a harsher sentence, than the Guidelines in effect in 2001 or 2002 when he committed the offenses. Section 2B1.1 of the 2002 Guidelines calls for a base offense level of six, and a four-point enhancement for the number of victims, instead of the six-point increase Custable received under the 2008 Guidelines. But this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Demaree, 459 F.3d 791, 795 (7th Cir.2006). In Demaree, we held that, because the Guidelines are only advisory in nature, a court's use of a later version does not offend ex post facto. Id. We find no reason to abandon that conclusion today. United States v. Nurek, 578 F.3d 618, 626 (7th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Panice, 598 F.3d 426, 435 (7th Cir.2010).