Court Opinion

ID: 9491619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:18:53.306782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:50.914692
License: Public Domain

*817FULLAM, Senior District Judge,
Concurring.
I concur in the judgment, because we are bound by the panel opinion in U.S. v. Astorri, 928 F.2d 1052 (1991). I believe, however, that the reasons given by the Astorri panel, and the majority’s further elaboration of that reasoning, are incorrect.
Section 3D1.2(c) of the Guidelines clearly requires grouping of the counts in this situation, since the criminal conduct embodied in the mail fraud count is a specific offense characteristic of the tax count. Contrary to the view of the majority, this does not in any way frustrate the intent of the Commission to treat tax cases more harshly if the unreported income came from criminal activity. The guideline range for the tax count is still increased by two points. And under the grouping analysis, this would be directly reflected in the actual sentence, if the tax count were the more serious of the two counts. The anomaly perceived by the majority is entirely due to the fact that, here, the fraud count carries a higher guideline range, and concurrent sentencing is mandatory. The conduct which aggravated the tax violation is being punished in the fraud count.
It should be noted that all “specific offense characteristics” enhance the guideline range; accepting the majority’s reasoning, there could never be grouping of counts on that basis; Guideline 3D1.2(c) would be a dead letter.
If free to do so, I would adopt the bright-line rule espoused by the staff of the Commission, and accepted by our sister-circuit in U.S. v. Haltom, 113 F.3d 43 (5th Cir.1997). This is not, I respectfully suggest, an issue which should divide the circuits.