Opinion ID: 213536
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hall's Sentencing Hearing

Text: At sentencing, the government argued for an offense level for Hall of 29, which included a six-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (USSG or the Guidelines) § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) based on the government's assertion that Hall's offense involved more than 250 victims. Although Hall had pled only to participation in the Nasdaq Class Action, which was not shown to involve more than 250 victims, the government argued and presented evidence that Hall facilitated false claims submitted in the Cendant and BankAmerica Class Actions, which did involve such large numbers of victims. To support its argument, the government presented testimony from IRS Agent Thomas Kauffman (Kauffman), who recounted Waltzer's description of the fraudulent Far East claim (which was submitted in the Cendant Class Action), including Hall's assistance in getting the money for that claim released to Waltzer. Kauffman also testified regarding an e-mail purportedly sent from Waltzer to Hall that included the script Hall was to follow when posing as the Far East partner (the script e-mail). He further testified that, according to Waltzer, Hall had adopted other aliases and made calls to assist Waltzer in other fraudulent claims in both the Cendant and BankAmerica Class Actions. Waltzer's account was corroborated by evidence that he had sent $100,000 to Hall immediately after the Far East check cleared and that, between April 2, 2003 and August 11, 2004, Waltzer wired Hall numerous payments totaling nearly $600,000 (including the $100,000 after the Far East check cleared). Thus Hall's profit from the scheme was alleged to be in excess of $800,000: the more than $200,000 retained from the settlement check he received pursuant to his admitted participation in the false Nasdaq claim, plus several wire transfers from Waltzer amounting to some $600,000. The additional $600,000 is not explained by anything to which Hall has confessed, but Waltzer told Kauffman it was the total of payments he made to Hall for facilitating false claims in the Cendant and BankAmerica Class Actions. [3] On cross examination, Kauffman acknowledged irregularities regarding the script e-mail, including that it appeared not to have been forensically downloaded from Waltzer's computer as other documents had been, that the body of the e-mail did not appear lined up with the header and look[ed] like it was printed cock-eyed, (App. at 710) and that the phone number for the e-mail recipient was a New York number, which Hall, who lived in Baltimore, was not known to have. Kauffman also testified that, despite subpoenaing Hall's phone records, the investigators did not find any record of the phone calls Waltzer testified Hall had made. Following Kauffman's testimony, the defense asked the Court to strike Paragraph 45, which outlined Hall's alleged calls on behalf of Far East, as described by Kauffman. The defense argued that 45 relies upon the documents for which there is absolutely no independent corroboration. It came from Waltzer, made by Waltzer, interpreted by Waltzer. (App. at 734.) The District Court responded that it was not willing to accept carte blanche what Waltzer told anybody but questioned whether there was reason to say that [Waltzer was lying] in this context of his testimony other than the mere existence of his cooperation status. (App. at 737-38.) The Court did not immediately rule on the defense motion to strike but instead turned to a discussion of other portions of the PSR. At the completion of that discussion, the Court, without explanation, stated that it was going to strike [P]aragraph 45. (App. at 739.) As a result of Paragraph 45's removal from the PSR and hence from consideration, the government conceded that the six-level enhancement for 250 or more victims was not appropriate, and the District Court eliminated the enhancement. That resulted in Hall's calculated offense level being 23, and, since his criminal history category was I, the consequent Guidelines range called for 46 to 57 months' imprisonment. The government requested a sentence in the higher end of the guideline range, giving its reasons as follows: The government sees the defendant as more culpable than the remaining defendants. His involvement with Mr. Waltzer was far more extensive. I know your honor struck that paragraph from the presentence report but you heard the testimony of Agent Kauffman, you saw the records and the financial records that showed that this defendant received over $800,000 from Mr. Waltzer for his participation in this scheme. (App. at 749.) Despite the government's request for a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range, the Court varied downward and sentenced Hall to 15 months' imprisonment, as well as restitution in the amount of $572,279.99. The government then objected to the sentence as unreasonable. [4]