Opinion ID: 2999680
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: LaGrou’s Sentence

Text: The district court sentenced LaGrou to a total of $2 million in fines. We review fines imposed on criminal defendants for reasonableness. Booker, 543 U.S. at 260-63. At sentencing, the district court extensively discussed that, under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, LaGrou’s fine could be anywhere from $12 million to $25 million. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3571, an organizational defendant that has been found guilty of a felony offense may be sentenced to pay a maximum statutory fine of not more than the greater of (a) $500,000; (b) twice the gross gain; or (c) twice the gross loss. 18 U.S.C. § 3571(c)(3), (d). Noting that the Guidelines were advisory, Judge Leinenweber declined to impose a fine within the Guideline range and instead imposed a fine of $2 million. After further discussion from the parties, Judge Leinenweber sentenced LaGrou to a fine of $500,000 on Count Three, $500,000 on Count Four, and $1 million on Count Five—for an aggregate fine of $2 million. As to Counts Three and Four, we find that the sentences are reasonable. As to Count Five, however, the default statutory maximum was $500,000 but the district court levied a fine for $1 million. The defendant argues that, absent a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt, the district court had no authority to sentence LaGrou in excess of the default statutory maximum of $500,000. We agree. The Sixth Amendment requires that any fact (other than the fact of prior conviction) that increases the maximum “penalty” for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable 16 No. 05-3361 doubt. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490. Here, the problem is that the district court did not give a special interrogatory with the jury instructions or verdict form asking the jury to find a loss amount. Thus, at sentencing, it was the district judge using a preponderance of the evidence standard to find the loss amount, not a jury finding loss amount beyond a reasonable doubt. This is error, and we remand to the district court for resentencing. Accordingly, while we AFFIRM LaGrou’s convictions on Counts Three, Four, and Five, and AFFIRM LaGrou’s sentence as to Counts Three and Four, we VACATE LaGrou’s sentence on Count Five and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part. A true Copy: Teste: ________________________________ Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit USCA-02-C-0072—10-20-06