Opinion ID: 2832657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Caroni’s sentence

Text: 1. General verdict precluded sentencing to an underlying object offense. Caroni asserts that in a multi-object conspiracy, a general verdict from the jury precludes the court from sentencing the defendant to an underlying object offense unless the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant conspired to commit that particular object offense. He argues that his sentences should be limited by his three-year statutory maximum sentence for Count 1 because the jury did not specifically find that he was guilty of conspiring to distribute Schedule II drugs. He also contends that the district court erred by failing to separately calculate his offense level for Count 2 under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 28 Case: 13-10661 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 29 of 47 to determine what his highest guideline range was. He argues that the court’s use of § 2D1.1 to calculate his offense level for Count 2 in conjunction with the application of the statutory maximum sentence for Count 2 is unconstitutional. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1956, a person convicted for money laundering faces a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii). The Sentencing Guidelines dictate that closely related counts shall be grouped together for sentencing purposes. U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2. In a case where the defendant is convicted of money laundering and convicted of the underlying offense from which the laundered funds were derived, the counts shall be grouped pursuant to § 3D1.2(c), and the highest offense level shall be applied. U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1, comment. (n.6); U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(a). While typically it is necessary to determine the offense level for each of the counts, the formal determination of the offense level is unnecessary where it is clear that one count cannot have a higher offense level than another. U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3, comment. (n.2). Money laundering offenses are covered by § 2S1.1 of the Guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1. Under § 2S1.1, the offense level of the underlying offense from which the laundered funds were derived is to be applied as long as it can be determined. U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(a)(1). Offenses involving a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances are covered by § 2D1.1 of the Guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. 29 Case: 13-10661 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 30 of 47 In determining the drug quantity for purposes of § 2D1.1, types and quantities of drugs not specified in the count of convictions may be considered. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.12)(2011).11 Additionally, the court may approximate the drug quantity by considering various factors, including financial and business records. Id. Caroni’s claim fails because the district court properly calculated his guideline range and neither of his sentences exceed their respective statutory maximum penalties. Because he was convicted of laundering the money that he derived from the drug offense, the district court properly grouped his counts. U.S.S.G. § 2S1.3, comment. (n.6). Because Caroni’s base offense level under § 2S1.1 was set to the offense level of his underlying drug offense, and he was eligible for the role adjustment in connection with either provision, he had the same total offense level for both counts. See U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(a)(1). As such, it was unnecessary to independently determine his offense level for both counts, and either one could be used as the highest offense level. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(a); U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3, comment. (n.2). He was subsequently sentenced to concurrent sentences of 36 months for Count 1 and 240 months for Count 2, both within his respective statutory maximum penalties. 11 The district court employed the 2011 Guidelines because the trial took place that year. 30 Case: 13-10661 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 31 of 47 Although Caroni argues that the court should have limited his sentence for Count 2 with his statutory maximum penalty for Count 1, he offers no authority to support this position, and the money laundering guidelines specifically require the use of the drug offense guidelines in cases like this without any directive to alter the respective statutory penalties. 12 Finally, he offers no authority to support his position that the court was not entitled to consider the Schedule II drugs involved in the drug offense under the Guidelines in determining his drug quantity. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.12). Accordingly, Caroni’s challenge fails. 2. Calculation of drug quantity Caroni challenges the court’s calculation of his drug quantity. He argues that the district court clearly erred in determining the drug quantity based upon his assertion that many of the drugs were prescribed legitimately and the court was required to exclude those drugs. This Court reviews the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and accepts its factual findings unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Jordi, 418 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir. 2005). In order to be clearly erroneous, the finding of the district court must leave this Court with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. 12 We also reject Caroni’s arguments based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000), and United States v. Allen, 302 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2002), because the pertinent statutory maximum is the one for money laundering. 31 Case: 13-10661 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 32 of 47 Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). However, a factual finding cannot be clearly erroneous when the fact finder is choosing between two permissible views of the evidence. United States v. Saingerard, 621 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 2010). For sentencing purposes, the government bears the burden of establishing drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005). The court must ensure that the government carries this burden by presenting reliable and specific evidence. United States v. Lawrence, 47 F.3d 1559, 1566 (11th Cir. 1995). The district court did not rely on a limited subset of the patient files to conclude that all of the patients received illegitimate prescriptions, but instead analyzed all of the identified patient files to reach the conclusion that all of the prescriptions were not for a legitimate medical purpose and were outside of those usual course of medical practice. Thus, with respect to all of the controlled substances for which Caroni was held responsible, the district court made a finding of fact that they were not prescribed for a legitimate medical purpose. The evidence showed that patients were able to pick up their prescriptions, often without seeing a doctor, simply by making the required payments. Patients had to pay in all cash, and prescriptions were often given out to patients with addiction problems, to patients that appeared to be under the influence, and in situations where the prescribing doctor believed that medication was not necessary. 32 Case: 13-10661 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 33 of 47 Furthermore, the government and the court excluded many of the patient files from the original 96 patient files that were seized and reviewed. The PSI initially considered 68 of the patient files, and only 67 were considered at sentencing following the government’s concession that one of the patients’ prescriptions should not be counted. Although Caroni argued that some of the patient files contained information suggesting that the patients legitimately needed the medication, he offered no reliable evidence to establish that the medications were for a legitimate medical purpose or within the usual course of medical practice. Caroni submitted the conclusions of his expert witness, Warfield, but the district court correctly noted that the weight of her opinion had to be tempered by the jury's guilty verdict. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in determining that a preponderance of the evidence supported the drug quantity specified in the PSI. 3. Substantively unreasonable sentence Finally, Caroni argues that his sentences are substantively unreasonable. He contends that the court impermissibly concluded that the conspiracy involved Schedule II drugs. Additionally, he points to the sentencing disparity between his sentences and those of his codefendants to argue that the district court made a clear error in judgment. He also argues that the court improperly considered evidence of 33 Case: 13-10661 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 34 of 47 the patient deaths and of Mark Artigues’s 13 conduct, evidence that he argues was not properly in the record. Finally, he asserts that the court prejudicially concluded that he was responsible for ruining the lives of the doctors involved in the cases when they were culpable for their own conduct. This Court reviews the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007). This Court may “set aside a sentence only if [it] determine[s], after giving a full measure of deference to the sentencing judge, that the sentence imposed truly is unreasonable.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1191 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), including the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). In imposing a particular sentence, the court must also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the applicable guideline range, the pertinent policy 13 Artigues was the former employee whom Caroni sued when he alleged that Artigues stole the Pensacola clinic from him. 34 Case: 13-10661 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 35 of 47 statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(1), (3) (7). In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, this Court first ensures that the sentence was procedurally reasonable, meaning the district court properly calculated the guideline range, treated the Guidelines as advisory and not mandatory, considered the § 3553(a) factors, did not select a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, and adequately explained the chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. The Guidelines dictate that where a sentence imposed on the count carrying the highest statutory maximum is less than the total punishment, then the sentence imposed on the other count shall run consecutively to the extent necessary to produce a combined sentence equal to the total punishment. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d). Once the Court determines that a sentence is procedurally sound, it examines whether the sentence was substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. Id. “The party challenging the sentence bears the burden to show it is unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). Although this Court does not apply a presumption of reasonableness for sentences falling within the guidelines range, “ordinarily [this Court] would expect a sentence within the Guidelines range to be 35 Case: 13-10661 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 36 of 47 reasonable.” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 787-88 (11th Cir. 2005). This Court reverses only if “left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190. “The fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. Congress has explicitly provided that there is no limitation on the information concerning “the background, character, and conduct” of the defendant that a court may consider in determining the appropriate sentences. 18 U.S.C. § 3661. At sentencing, a court’s factual findings may be based on trial evidence, undisputed statements in the PSI, or evidence presented at the sentencing hearing. United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1355, 1356 (11th Cir. 1989). First, the district court did not err in considering evidence regarding Artigues or the patient deaths. The Caroni deposition testimony recounted how two Global Pain employees were hired to work at Artigues’s clinic, and the clinic’s earnings went to Caroni, who would then pay Artigues. It was also permissible for the court to consider the evidence of the patient deaths because that evidence was introduced at sentencing. Wilson, 884 F.2d at 1356. Regardless, any error with respect to the 36 Case: 13-10661 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 37 of 47 consideration of the death evidence was harmless because the court stated that it did not affect Caroni’s sentences. As to his argument regarding the consideration of Schedule II drugs in calculating his drug quantity, such consideration is expressly contemplated by the Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.12). Likewise, the court’s partial attribution of the consequences the doctors faced to Caroni is consistent with the determination that he held a leadership role in the offense, and the court stated that it was not absolving the doctors of their own conduct. While Caroni is correct in pointing out that his sentences are significantly higher than those of DiLeo and Pastorek, their sentences are the result of “extraordinary” situations that warranted significant departures. DiLeo initially had a sentencing range of 188 to 235 months, the same range Caroni would have had without the leadership role adjustment. He received a 12-level departure because of the medical condition and special needs of his child, which resulted in a guideline range of 51 to 63 months. From there, the court imposed concurrent sentences of 24 months for both counts, representing a 27-month variance from the low end of his guideline range. Pastorek started with a much lower initial sentencing range because he was only charged and convicted for Count 1, and his guideline range was limited by his statutory maximum penalty. He received a 6-level departure for the medical 37 Case: 13-10661 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 38 of 47 condition and medical needs of his child, and he was sentenced to 12 months and 1 day of imprisonment, which was within his guideline range. By contrast, Caroni’s otherwise applicable guideline range was 292 to 365 months. Under § 5G1.2(d), the court should have imposed his statutory maximum sentences consecutively to approximate his recommended guideline range, which would have resulted in a sentence of 276 months. Thus, his total sentence of 240 months represented a downward variance of 36 months, which is actually greater than the variance that DiLeo received. Accordingly, the disparities in the sentences are explained by the differences in circumstances between the three defendants. Finally, Caroni’s sentences are reasonable in light of the record as a whole. The district court thoroughly considered the § 3553(a) factors, the trial evidence, and the arguments of the parties. The court emphasized that it believed strong sentences were warranted based on the seriousness of the offenses and Caroni's role in perpetuating them. The nature and scope of Caroni's conduct resulted in the distribution of the equivalency of 16,517.99 kilograms of marijuana and resulted in the laundering of approximately $8,557,205 in funds. Further, his 240-month sentences represented a downward variance from his applicable guideline range, as discussed above. Given the seriousness and magnitude of the offenses, Caroni’s leadership role in the offenses, and the district court’s consideration of the § 38 Case: 13-10661 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 39 of 47 3553(a) factors, Caroni’s sentences are substantively reasonable. Accordingly, this Court affirms Caroni’s sentences. AFFIRMED. 39 Case: 13-10661 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 40 of 47