Opinion ID: 785681
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Procedural Background and Sentencing Guidelines

Text: 10 Subsequent to defendant Orlando's conviction, on September 15, 2000, the district court sentenced defendant to sixty-three months imprisonment and two years supervised release. This sentence was based on the district court's application of § 2S1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, pursuant to which the district court calculated defendant's offense level as 26. The district court held defendant accountable for laundered funds in the amount of $449,655.62, and therefore enhanced defendant's base offense level of 23 by three points in order to arrive at the offense level of 26. Defendant objected to the amount of laundered funds for which he was held accountable, and appealed both his conviction and sentence. 11 On appeal, this Court held that the district court erred in enhancing Orlando's base offense level by three points pursuant to § 2S1.1 without making specific factual findings concerning the amount of laundered funds for which [Orlando] was accountable. Orlando, 281 F.3d at 601. For example, the district court failed to make a specific determination as to when Orlando entered the conspiracy and failed to indicate the scope of criminal activity Orlando agreed to undertake. Id. at 601. This Court explained that [a]lthough the evidence may justify holding Orlando accountable for [approximately] $449,000 of laundered money, the district court's failure to explain its factual determination requires us to remand the case for resentencing. Id. at 601. Therefore, we remanded the case for resentencing. 12 Between the date of defendant's original sentencing hearing, on September 15, 2000, and the date of defendant's resentencing hearing, on July 18, 2002, § 2S1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines was amended, effective November 1, 2001. At the time of defendant's sentencing, § 2S1.1 provided for a three-point enhancement of a defendant's base offense level if the value of the laundered funds exceeded $350,000. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(D). The amended version of § 2S1.1 required an entirely different calculation to determine both a defendant's base offense level and whether an enhancement was appropriate, and would have resulted in a drastically different sentence for Orlando. (Govt.'s Mt. for Clarification, June 4, 2002.) 13 Therefore, on June 4, 2002, the Government filed a motion with this Court seeking clarification as to which version of § 2S1.1 should apply on remand. The Government wanted to determine whether the entire sentence ha[d] been vacated by [this Court] or whether the remand was for the limited purpose of determining the amount of laundered funds. (Govt.'s Mt. for Clarification, June 4, 2002.) By Order dated June 12, 2002, this Court denied the Government's motion. This Court explained that the context of the filed opinion makes it obvious that the remand for resentencing is limited to determining the amount of laundered funds properly attributable to Orlando. (Order of Sixth Circuit, June 12, 2002.)