Court Opinion

ID: 2965121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:35:42.785607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:32.288290
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [Not for Publication]
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1905

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   ANDREW P. LEPPO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________
                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Robert M.  Goldstein with  whom Leppo  & Leppo  was  on brief  for
            ____________________            ______________
        appellant.
            Jeanne M. Kempthorne, Assistant United  States Attorney, with whom
            ____________________
        Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
        _______________

                                 ____________________

                                       
                                  February 10, 1998
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.  Andrew  Leppo pled guilty  to charges
                      Per  Curiam.
                      ____________

            that  he   masterminded  several  schemes   and  conspiracies

            involving  various  forms  of  bank  fraud  and  the  sale of

            counterfeit  computer equipment,  in  violation of  18 U.S.C.

               371  & 2320.   The  district court  sentenced Leppo  to 37

            months in prison and ordered him to pay some  $2.6 million in

            restitution to fifteen  different victims.  On  appeal, Leppo

            challenges both his sentence  and the restitution order.   We

            affirm.

                      1.  Downward Departure
                      ______________________

                      Leppo requested a downward departure under U.S.S.G.

              5K2.13,  based on psychiatric testimony that a pathological

            gambling compulsion had motivated his crimes.  He argues that

            the district court  refused to depart under    5K2.13 because

            it erroneously believed that it  lacked authority to do so on

            the basis of Leppo s gambling disorder.   Contrary to Leppo s

            characterization, however, the court explicitly stated at the

            sentencing hearing that it  did have the discretion  to grant
                                        ___

            Leppo s requested departure,  but that it found  the exercise

            of such discretion to be inappropriate in this case.   We are

            without  jurisdiction  to  review  the court s  discretionary

            refusal to depart.  See United States v. Rizzo, 121 F.3d 794,
                                ___ _____________    _____

            798 (1st Cir. 1997).

                      Second, Leppo argued below that this  case featured

            "unusual" mitigating circumstances that placed it outside the

                                         -2-
                                          2

            "heartland" of the applicable guidelines (U.S.S.G.    2B5.3 &

            2F1.1), in that the aggregate retail value of his counterfeit

            goods -- which was the  predicate for a 14-step offense level

            enhancement   --  had  plummeted  between  the  time  of  the

            infringing sales and the time of sentencing.   Leppo contends

            that  the district  court  misconstrued  his  argument  as  a

            request  for  downward   departure  under  U.S.S.G.    2F1.1,

            application note 10.

                      We  see  no  indication that  the  court  failed to

            comprehend Leppo s position.  It is evident that the district

            court, observing that Leppo actually profited from the higher
                                                 ________

            retail prices prevailing at the time of his offenses,  simply

            declined  to attach any  relevance to the  post-offense price

            fluctuations  at issue.  The court  therefore had no occasion

            to  consider   whether  those   fluctuations  constituted   a

            "mitigating circumstance"  warranting an  unguided departure;

            obviously,  an irrelevant  circumstance  cannot mitigate  the
                           __________                       ________

            seriousness  of  an  offense.   The  court s  construction of

            Leppo s argument as a request for departure under application

            note  10  to    2F1.1  strikes  us  as  a  rather  charitable

            reformulation of Leppo s position,  not a misunderstanding of

            it.  Because  the court s denial of  Leppo s second departure

            request was not  based on any legal or  factual mistake, that

            decision similarly is not subject  to our review.  See Rizzo,
                                                               ___ _____

            121 F.3d at 798.

                                         -3-
                                          3

                      2.  Restitution
                      _______________

                      Leppo raises  two  challenges  to  the  restitution

            order, both for the first time on appeal.  He argues (1) that

            the district court failed to evaluate his ability to pay, and

            (2)  that the order  overcompensated one of  Leppo s victims,

            IBM.  We agree with  the government that Leppo clearly waived
                                                                   ______

            his  first argument,  and  probably  waived  the  second,  by

            specifically stating at  the disposition hearing that  he was

            content to "leave any restitution order  to the discretion of

            the court."

                      Even if Leppo s second argument was not waived, our

            review would be limited to plain error.  See United States v.
                                                     ___ _____________

            Mitchell, 85 F.3d  800, 807 (1st Cir. 1996).   Leppo suggests
            ________

            that there is a "substantial risk" that the restitution order

            overcompensates IBM because IBM may have recouped some of its

            losses, but he fails even to hint at a reasonable estimate of

            the amount that IBM actually might have recouped; nor does he

            describe  any  plausible,  practical  method  by  which   the

            district court  could have  calculated that amount.   In  any

            event, the district court was  not required to fix the amount

            of its restitution order with absolute precision.  See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States v. Vaknin, 112  F.3d 579, 587 (1st Cir. 1997).   Here,
            ______    ______

            the  record clearly  reflects  that  the  court  undertook  a

            detailed review of  the evidence in calculating the amount of

            loss  suffered by IBM.   Leppo s unsupported  assertions fall

                                         -4-
                                          4

            far short of  demonstrating any substantial error,  much less

            plain error, in the district court s restitution order.

                      Affirmed.
                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -5-
                                          5