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

Heading: Eddings’s sentencing.

Text: U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d). Eddings’s PSR recommended that counts 1–4 (Ponzi scheme mail fraud), 7–10 (Ponzi scheme wire fraud and money laundering), and 11–12 (bankruptcy fraud) be grouped under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d) because “the offense level is determined largely on the basis of the total amount of harm or loss.” Eddings objected, arguing that the grouping was improper because the bankruptcy counts “involve different victims and modes of fraud and are unrelated to the investment scheme in manner and in time.” The district court overruled Eddings’s objection.
leadership role. The PSR recommended that Eddings’s sentence not be increased under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 for a leadership role. The government objected, arguing that Eddings recruited others “who knowingly or unknowingly worked on the defendant’s behalf to recruit victims.” The district court found this a “close question,” but determined that the government had proved that Eddings had acted as a leader and applied the adjustment. UNITED STATES V. BROWN 11
§ 2B1.1(b)(15)(B)(iii) for “endanger[ing] the solvency or financial security of 100 or more victims.” Over Eddings’s objection, and with little discussion, the district court also applied a two-level increase under § 2B1.1(b)(15)(B)(iii) to Eddings’s sentence. The court determined that, for “the same reasons . . . stated in Mr. Brown’s sentencing,” the increase was “applicable to Mr. Eddings as well.”
for having 250 or more victims. Eddings’s PSR determined that he had 154 victims. The government objected, arguing that the total should include an additional 147 victims who invested with Brown prior to Eddings’s involvement but to whom Eddings made lulling payments. The district court determined that the 147 victims “had at least some communication or contact with Mr. Eddings [and] therefore they should be added to his victim total as well.” Consequently, Eddings’s offense was increased by six levels under § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C).
Based on Eddings’s offense level of 39, the Guidelines range was 262 to 327 months. U.S.S.G. Chapter 5 Part A. The district court was “concerned” about sentencing disparity because even a low-end sentence for Eddings would be over six years more than Brown’s sentence. The court reviewed the “3553(a) factors” and noted that, without his reduction for acceptance of responsibility, Brown would have faced 210 to 12 UNITED STATES V. BROWN 262 months. The court found that range also “appropriate” for Eddings’s conduct, and gave a “downward variance,” sentencing Eddings to a total term of 210 months.