Opinion ID: 2467
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appeal and Resentencing

Text: The Rigases appealed their convictions, and on May 24, 2007, another panel of our Court affirmed the convictions on all counts except one count of bank fraud  Count 23for which it found insufficient evidence. See Rigas, 490 F.3d at 236, 239. However, the panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support a related count of bank fraudCount 22. Id. at 235-36. The panel remanded the cause for resentencing. Id. at 239. No new PSR was prepared for resentencing, but at the District Court's request, the Probation Office informed the District Court by letter that the appropriate sentence under the Guidelines was still life imprisonment because the aggregate of the statutory maximum terms of the [remaining] counts of conviction was 185 years, reduced from 215 years. Special App. 17. The District Court conducted a resentencing hearing on May 22, 2008 and issued a written opinion and order on June 24, 2008. The District Court held that it was not required to resentence defendants de novo because Count 23 was a small part of the overall conviction and ran concurrently with Count 22, which this Court upheld. Accordingly, the District Court concluded that the reversal was akin to a sentencing error rather than a conviction error, and that only a limited resentencing was required. Special App. 18-19. The District Court expressly rejected the Rigases' argument that under United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217 (2d Cir. 2002), resentencing had to be de novo because the reversal was based on a conviction error, not a sentencing error, and characterized this distinction as a mechanical test. Id. Nevertheless, the District Court concluded in an alternative holding that even under de novo or holistic resentencing, there was no basis for a reduction of [a] sentence which is broader than the relatively minor adjustment occasioned by the reversal of Count 23. Indeed, ... the sentence previously imposed was fully justified under all of the circumstances. Special App. 23. In reaching this conclusion, the District Court addressed and rejected the Rigases' challenges to the twenty-six level sentencing enhancement for loss in excess of $100 million. The Court also observed that the Rigases made no claim that the reversal of [the conviction on] Count 23 ... [affects] the strength or substance of the convictions on the 17 other counts as to which the Court of Appeals noted there was ample evidence. Special App. 23-24. Indeed, the District Court concluded that the reversal on Count 23 altered neither the applicable Guidelines range, nor the seriousness of the[ir] ... crimes, nor the suffering which their conduct inflicted on so many people. Special App. 24. Despite observing that there was no basis for a reduction in the Rigases' sentences, Special App. 23, the District Court in fact applied a minimal adjustment, reducing each sentence by three years, to 12 and 17 years for John and Timothy Rigas, respectively. Special App. 24.