Opinion ID: 2812339
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alcime’s Sentencing

Text: A few minutes after Gonzalez was sentenced, Alcime’s sentencing began. Alcime’s attorney advised that, based on the district court’s ruling during Gonzalez’s sentencing, Alcime no longer objected to the number of victims involved in the offenses. The district court stated that, consistent with Gonzalez’s sentencing, it would reduce the number of victims to 50, which would result in an advisory guidelines range of 63 to 78 months for Alcime. Defense counsel clarified, however, that Alcime continued to object to the loss amount and the restitution amount. In response, the district court stated, “What I did with Ms. Gonzalez a few minutes ago was I ordered restitution in the 10 Case: 14-11817 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 11 of 27 amount of $1.8 million, which was the testimony [of] how much money went into the two accounts.” The district court further explained that “if $1.8 million went into the account, then more than $1 million of that was fraudulent, and the actual loss would be more than $1 million.” Alcime’s counsel stated that he was present and had heard the district court’s ruling on Gonzalez’s loss amount objection, but that Alcime’s argument was that she never intended to defraud the government and was innocent. Defense counsel also pointed out that Alcime never received the $1 million actual loss amount. The district court noted that Alcime was not present when Agent Munoz testified and summarized Agent Munoz’s testimony for Alcime’s benefit, as follows: For the reasons I set forth in Ms. Gonzalez’s sentencing, I will go ahead and overrule the objection. Ms. Alcime wasn’t here, so for her benefit, I will indicate that the government put on the Detective to testify that the IRS has confirmed 175 of the tax payers have indicated that they didn’t file those returns and they were fraudulent returns. $1.8 million went into the accounts from the IRS. The actual loss to the IRS, which is unusual in this case, is more than the intended loss because of a couple of big windfall returns that were utilized because they had made quarterly payments, and the IRS just gave back all the money that these poor people had paid in quarterly in anticipation of it being used to offset taxes they were going to owe on April 15. They just gave all their money back, and it went directly into the accounts controlled by Ms. Alcime and by Ms. Gonzalez. 11 Case: 14-11817 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 12 of 27 The district court asked if Agent Munoz should return to the stand to testify again. Defense counsel responded that Alcime did not take the same position as Gonzalez, was very apologetic and “was not going to waste the Court’s time by bringing [back] the lead agent in this case to testify before the Court.” Alcime argued, and the government agreed, that she was less culpable than Gonzalez because she had filed fewer returns and had withdrawn less funds from the two bank accounts. The district court stated that, although it had originally planned to impose a sentence at the top of the advisory guidelines range, it was persuaded that she “deserve[d] a little bit of a break.” After considering the § 3553(a) factors, the district court imposed concurrent 72-month sentences for the conspiracy offense in Count 1 and the theft of public money offenses in Counts 6, 7, and 9, and concurrent 24-month sentences for the aggravated identity theft offenses in Counts 10 and 11, to run consecutive to Counts 1, 6, 7, and 9, for a total sentence of 96 months. The district court also ordered Alcime to pay $1.8 million in restitution, in joint and several liability with Gonzalez.