Opinion ID: 197760
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Should the defendant have been sentenced under

Text: Guideline 2Q1.2 rather than 2F1.1? Appendix A to the Sentencing Guidelines Manual provides a statutory index keyed to the applicable guideline. In the introduction to Appendix A, the statement is made that if, in an atypical case, the Guideline section indicated for the statute of conviction is inappropriate because of the particular conduct involved, use the Guideline section most applicable to the Nature of the Offense conduct charged in the count of which the defendant was convicted. The reader is then referred to 1B1.2 of the Guidelines which states in Application Note 1 that when a particular statute proscribes a variety of conduct that might constitute the subject of different offense guidelines, the court -15- will determine which Guideline section applies based upon the nature of the offense conduct charged in the count of which the defendant was convicted. Building on the atypical case reference and Application Note 1 to 1B1.2, Henry contends that his convictions represent an atypical fraud prosecution because the gravamen of the convicted counts, including the conspiracy, was that the defendant violated environmental rules and regulations by transporting and storing contaminated soil which exceeded permitted levels in quantity and composition at the Beede Waste Oil facility in New Hampshire. The defendant suggests that the apparent dearth of cases involving simultaneous federal prosecution of both environmental offenses and wire and fraud counts suggests the claimed atypicality and argues that the commentary in application note 13 to U.S.S.G 2F1.1, which directs that where the indictment...establishes an offense more aptly covered by another guideline, apply that guideline rather than 2F1.1, requires that U.S.S.G. 2Q1.2 should have been followed by the district court. The district court conducted a four hour sentencing hearing and rejected the defendant's 2Q1.2 argument, holding that the case was not about environmental crime, but rather an effort by Mr. Henry to generate income. We review de novo the trial court's determinations on the issue of whether to apply 2F1.1 rather than 2Q1.2. United States v. Ruiz, l05 F.3d 1492, l504 (1st Cir. 1997). -16- The defendant's reliance on United States v. Fulbright, 105 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 1996) is misplaced. In Fulbright, the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to impede federal officers in violation of 18 U.S.C. 372 and for obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. 1503. The district court there used the only guideline listed for 18 U.S.C. in the Statutory Index to the Guidelines Manual. Citing the atypicality language in Appendix A,6 the Ninth Circuit then remanded for resentencing under U.S.S.G 2A2.4 which is captioned Obstructing or Impeding Officers, because the defendant's conduct was determined to be more analogous to impeding a federal officer than to obstruction of justice. Id. at 453. In this case, in contrast to Fulbright, and as recognized by the district court below, the defendant's conduct involved two classes of victims. With respect to the fraud counts, the victims were the companies to which Henry made promises that he never kept in exchange for the monies he extracted, while the conspiracy conviction victimized society as a whole. The decision in United States v. Rubin, 999 F.2d 194 (7th Cir. 1993), tracks the single victim analysis as the victims in connection with the mail fraud and price-fixing were the same. Accepting the separate victim analysis and applying the 6 If, in an atypical case, the guideline section indicated for the statute of conviction is inappropriate because of the particular conduct involved, [the court should] use the guideline section most applicable to the nature of the offense conduct charged in the count of which the defendant was convicted. U.S.S.G. Appendix A. See also U.S.S.G. 1B1.2, comment (n.1). -17- appropriate standard of review, we find no error in the determination that the principal crime came under the fraud analysis of U.S.S.G. 2F1.1. We find no fault in the district court's analysis that the main motivation for the criminal conduct was to obtain money. There is no indication that the defendant was embarked on a crusade to engage in committing environmental crimes. Rather, it is clear that his objective was to make money, and in the process he engaged in an environmental crime, which conduct was an incidental by-product of his fraudulent conduct. We therefore find no error in the application of the guidelines under the aegis of 2F1.1.