Opinion ID: 706022
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was Savage's sentence on the Sec. 1956 and Sec. 1957 offenses properly calculated?

Text: 44 Savage concedes he did not object to application of sentencing guidelines that he now argues are incorrect. We have held that failure to object constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal. United States v. Hernandez-Rodriguez, 975 F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir.1992). Nonetheless, we have also held that when a defendant fails to object, sentencing will be reviewed for plain error. Id. We proceed to review application of the guidelines in Savage's case for plain error. 45
46 The district court set a base offense level of 23 for the eight counts of conviction under Sec. 1956. U.S.S.G. Sec. 2S1.1(a)(1)-(2) sets a base offense level of 23 for convictions under Sec. 1956(a)(2)(A) and a base offense level of 20 for convictions under Sec. 1956(a)(2)(B). Savage argues he was convicted only of violating Sec. 1956(a)(2)(B). However, as discussed above, Savage was convicted under counts combining the elements of Sec. 1956(a)(2)(A) and Sec. 1956(a)(2)(B). Because the guidelines establish the base offense level of 23 for the Sec. 1956(a)(2)(A) violation, the district court's decision to apply the higher base offense level of 23 cannot be considered plain error. 47
48 The district court increased the base offense level for the Sec. 1956 convictions by 4 levels under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1(a), which provides for this increase [i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. The court stated: 49 Again, for the adjustment for role in the offense, Mr. Savage was the organizer. He was the moving factor behind the entire scheme. There were more than five people involved in it that he used. 50 [Sentencing Transcript (ST) at 57] (Emphasis added). These remarks indicate that the district court relied on Savage's role in the Savage program as a whole, rather than solely on his role in the international money laundering. Savage does not dispute that this enhancement was appropriately applied to increase the base level on the underlying mail and wire fraud convictions. However, he argues that it was improperly applied to increase the base level on the money laundering convictions. 51 The district court was applying the 1987 guidelines. Prior to the 1990 amendment to the Sec. 3B1.1 introductory commentary, we indicated that adjustment for aggravating role should be based solely on the defendant's role in the offense of conviction. United States v. Zweber, 913 F.2d 705, 708 (9th Cir.1990). The 1990 amendment to the introductory commentary explains that the adjustment for role is based on all relevant conduct, as defined in U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.3, and not solely on the defendant's role in the offense of conviction. After this 1990 commentary amendment came into effect, we concluded that the amendment clarified the relationship between Sec. 1B1.3, governing relevant conduct, and Sec. 3B1.1. United States v. Lillard, 929 F.2d 500, 503 (9th Cir.1991). We distinguished the discussion on Sec. 3B1.1 in Zweber as dicta. Lillard, 929 F.2d at 503. 52 Lillard thus indicates that even in pre-1990 application of the guidelines, the adjustment for role could be based on the defendants' role in all relevant conduct, which includes acts committed or aided or abetted by the defendant in preparation for the offense. U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.3(a)(1). Savage's role in the entire mail and wire fraud scheme is relevant conduct for purposes of determining his aggravating role in money laundering. Thus, the district court did not err in considering his role in the entire scheme.The district court also correctly concluded that Savage orchestrated the efforts of well over five participants to perform the wire and mail fraud that provided the monetary proceeds laundered in violation of Sec. 1956. A 'participant' is a person who is criminally responsible for the offense, but need not have been convicted. Commentary note 1 to Sec. 3B1.1(a). William Tankersley helped bring other people into the Savage program. [21 RT 3199] Pat Cross handled Savage program paperwork and phone calls from investors. [4 RT 229] Marlin Harris opened accounts in which investors deposited their money, and he transferred funds to bank accounts he opened for Savage in the Austrian bank. [12 RT 1299, 1304] Dave Buck performed a similar role. [12 RT 1464-66] Steve Fink and James Peterson arranged to utilize one of Peterson's accounts for deposit of Savage program funds. [11 RT 1161-65] Fink and Savage also instructed Peterson on when to wire funds from this account to other banks. [11 RT 1165-66] Pat Garner opened yet another account to receive and transfer Savage program funds. [14 RT 1790-1794] 53
54 The district court found that the money laundered in violation of Sec. 1956 totalled more than $2 million and therefore increased the base offense level for the Sec. 1956 convictions by 6 levels. [ST 57] See U.S.S.G. Sec. 2S1.1(b)(2)(G). Savage argues that total disbursement from the Royal Trust Bank accounts totalled $1,968,965, under $2 million, and therefore the base offense level should have been increased by 5 rather than 6. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 2S1.1(b)(2)(F). Savage's argument fails. The figure Savage cites is not the total disbursement from Royal Trust Bank. Rather, the figure is the total amount deposited into Savage's MacGregor account at the Bank of America, Napa, California. [19 RT 2895, 2907] These deposits came from several sources. [19 RT 2896, 2898, 2900-2903] Thus, Savage provides no support for his claim that total disbursements from the Royal Trust Bank account were under $2 million. 55 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1956(a)(2) prohibits the transfer of funds either out of or into the United States, if done to promote fraud or conceal the proceeds of unlawful activity. The sentencing adjustment for the value of funds transferred is based on all acts and omissions that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction. U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.3(a)(2). Such acts can include uncharged acts. United States v. Rose, 20 F.3d 367, 371 (9th Cir.1994). The United States Attorney asserts that evidence introduced at trial establishes transfers out of the United States totalling over $3 million and Savage does not dispute that figure. The record indicates that $1,230,000 was transferred out of the U.S. from the W.I.N. account, $240,000 from the Aguilar account, and at least $615,000 from the F & M bank, for a total of $2,085,000. [19 RT 2857, 2873, 20 RT 3034] The six level increase was appropriate. 56
57 Savage was convicted of thirteen counts of violating Sec. 1957, governing transfers of criminally derived proceeds. The district court concluded that the wire transfers in violation of Sec. 1957 totalled over $6 million, a figure equal to the total amount that Savage defrauded investors. The court increased the base offense level by 8. [ST 58-59] U.S.S.G. Secs. 2S1.2(b)(2), 2S1.1(b)(2)(I). Savage argues that because the $6 million figure was the total amount that Savage obtained through the fraud, the increase under Sec. 1957 improperly imposed extra punishment for the underlying criminal activity of mail and wire fraud. 58 We need not address this issue. The Sec. 1956 convictions and the Sec. 1957 convictions were grouped together to determine the offense level in the sentencing guidelines. [ST 54] See U.S.S.G. Sec. 3D1.2(d). The Sec. 1956 convictions resulted in an offense level of 35, while the Sec. 1957 convictions resulted in an offense level of 33. ST 57, 59. The offense level for the group became 35, the higher of the two offense levels. [ST 59-60] See U.S.S.G. Sec. 3D1.3(b). Thus, the offense level for the Sec. 1957 convictions was not used to calculate the final sentence.V. Conclusion 59 The judgment of conviction and the sentence are AFFIRMED.