Opinion ID: 3012591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Upward Adjustment for Sophisticated Means

Text: under the Sentencing Guidelines Syme argues that the District Court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by applying a two-level sentence enhancement for the commission of fraud by sophisticated means pursuant to S 2F1.1(b)(5)(c) (1998) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Because Syme raises this objection for the first time on appeal, we review the claim under the plain error standard. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); see also supra note 4. The sophisticated means enhancement did not become effective until November 1, 1998, more than a year after the last conduct charged in the indictment. We have held that [a]s a general rule, sentencing courts must apply the guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing, not at the time of the crime, but that where, as here,such retroactivity results in harsher penalties, Ex Post Facto Clause problems arise, and courts must apply the earlier version. United States v. Kopp, 951 F.2d 521, 526 (3d Cir. 1991); see also U.S.S.G. S 1b1.11(b) (2001) (If the court determines that use of the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced would violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution, the court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the offense of conviction was committed.). The government concedes that the first two prongs of plain error review are met, i.e., that the District Court erred by applying the sophisticated means enhancement, and that this error was clear. The government challenges the third prong of the plain error standard, however, contending that Syme's substantial rights were not prejudiced by the error because the range of possible sentences under the correct sentencing level (level 19, which calls for a sentence of 30-37 months) overlaps with the range of sentences under the erroneous sentencing level (level 21, which yields a sentence of 37-46 months). However, in United States v. Knight, 266 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2001), we held that under plain error review, an error in application of the Guidelines that results in use of a higher sentencing range should be presumed to affect the defendant's substantial rights. Id. at 207. As does this 39 case, Knight addressed the situation where the erroneous sentencing range overlapped with the correct sentencing range. The government has failed to rebut this presumption of prejudice. We conclude that this error too seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings to be left uncorrected. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993) (internal quotation marks and alternation omitted). Therefore, we will vacate Syme's sentence and remand to the District Court with instructions to sentence Syme without applying the sophisticated means enhancement.