Opinion ID: 601431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: claim of incorrect calculation of damages for sentencing purposes

Text: 110 The appellant contends that the trial judge, for sentencing purposes, incorrectly calculated the amount of the loss suffered by the government and that therefore the sentences should be vacated. He asks for a new sentencing hearing at which the government would be required to produce the information necessary to determine the true loss. 111 This is a pre-guidelines case for sentencing purposes. Under that regime the District Courts enjoyed wide, and generally unreviewable discretion in determining the sentences to be imposed. See United States v. Bryant, 892 F.2d 1466, 1470 (10th Dir.1989), cert. denied 110 S.Ct. 3220 (1990). 112 Here the defendant contested a statement in the pre-sentence report as to the amount of the loss. The Court held a hearing, then issued a ruling. In that ruling the Court stated that its purpose was not to arrive at a precise dollar figure that the government was incapable of collecting because of defendant's crimes. The Court stated that its objective was to measure the depth and breadth of defendant's fraudulent scheme and to gain a shorthand indication of the general damages suffered by the government. The Court found that the scheme resulted in $1.37 million in overstated investment tax credits. And the Court accepted revenue agent's analysis that the losses from fraudulent depreciation claims exceeded $649,291. Thus the total tax loss was more than $2,000,000. The trial Court further noted that this did not include losses of time, effort and money by the investors. The lower Court also observed: The Government's disallowance of fraudulent claims and eventual recovery of some portion of taxes owed does not diminish the extent of the fraud perpetuated by the defendant. 113 The actual sentencing occurred on March 22, 1991. See Supplemental Appendix F of the Appellee, Vol. IV P. 410-421. The government was arguing for a sentence of 48 years imprisonment. The defendant was urging probation. The judge weighed the arguments of both parties. He spoke of the sentencing objectives of deterrence and punishment. He spoke of the size of this thing (some 110 investors); of the impact on a lot of people who gave their savings, some retirement benefits because they thought the program was sound. He referred to them as vulnerable people. The judge also noted the positive things about the defendant's life. 114 After weighing all the factors, sentences were imposed which will have the effect of five years imprisonment with five years probation to follow. 115 In the total chemistry of pre-guidelines sentencing it is impossible to identify the effect of any single factor or circumstance. 116 We find no basis in this record to challenge the sentences imposed. 117 AFFIRMED.