Opinion ID: 2749072
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Brown’s sentencing.

Text: § 5K1.1 and application of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The government filed a United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 5K1.1 motion, seeking to reduce Brown’s sentence to 100 months because of his assistance. The district court acknowledged that Brown “did cooperate” and “accepted responsibility,” but found the government’s proposed 100 month sentence “too great of a reduction.” The court then analyzed the “[18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) factors.” The judge concluded that Brown was still “a danger to the public given the depth and length of this scheme” and that “a lengthy sentence [wa]s necessary . . . to protect the public from further crimes of this defendant.” Although the court credited Brown for accepting responsibility and assisting the government, he found that after application of the § 3553(a) factors, “it basically [was] a wash.” The court denied the § 5K1.1 motion under these “unique circumstances,” and sentenced Brown to 188 months, a within-Guidelines sentence at the top of the range.2 2 The district court reduced Brown’s offense level by three levels for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). UNITED STATES V. BROWN 9
3 § 2B1.1(b)(15)(B)(iii) for “endanger[ing] the solvency or financial security of 100 or more victims.” The pre-sentence report (PSR) suggested that Brown’s sentence should be increased by two levels4 under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(15)(B)(iii) because the “offense substantially endangered the solvency or financial security of 100 or more victims.” Brown timely objected, arguing that the government had failed to specifically identify 100 such victims. The court overruled the objection, finding that the “information that probation ha[d] before it” was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that “there were at least 100 victims whose solvency was endangered.” 3 The current (2013) version of the U.S.S.G. numbers this provision § 2B1.1(b)(16)(B)(iii), while the 2011 and 2012 versions of the Guidelines cited by the district court and the probation office number the provision § 2B1.1(b)(15)(B)(iii). Because there is no substantive difference, this opinion refers to § 2B1.1(b)(15)(B)(iii). 4 Pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 2B1.1(b)(15)(C), (D), the cumulative adjustment from subsections 2B1.1(b)(2) and (b)(15)(B) cannot exceed eight levels. Brown does not challenge the six-level upward adjustment he received under § 2Bl.l(b)(2)(C) for having more than 250 victims; thus, the maximum possible upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(l5)(B)(iii) was two levels, rather than the standard four. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(15)(C). 10 UNITED STATES V. BROWN