United States v. Andrzej Pietkiewicz
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5559
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Pietkiewicz, a Polish immigrant who came to the U.S. in 1990 at age 17, engaged in a scheme using six false identities to finance and abscond with at least twelve cars between 2008–2009.
- Some cars were equipped with tracking systems, but signals were not received, suggesting tracking disablement or removal from the U.S.; only one car was recovered in Canada.
- He previously served a six-month federal sentence in Ohio for fraud with identification documents, discharged in 2010.
- In December 2010 and March 2011, Pietkiewicz was charged in Illinois with mail fraud; he pled guilty on March 23, 2011.
- The PSR calculated a total offense level of 24 with enhancements for sophisticated means and an organized scheme, placing him in criminal history category II and a guideline range of 57–71 months.
- Pietkiewicz moved for downward variance under §§ 5G1.3 and 5K2.23 to credit the discharged Ohio sentence, but the district court denied without explanation; the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for explicit consideration and explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the district court required to explain its denial of a downward variance under 5G1.3/5K2.23 when it considered related Ohio conduct? | Pietkiewicz contends the Ohio conduct should yield a downward variance or adjustment. | The district court purportedly could deny without detailed explanation given the discretionary nature of sentencing. | Yes; the district court erred by denying without explanation and must provide reasoning on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (requires explanation for sentence under 3553(a))
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (clarifies explanation standards for federal sentencing”)
- United States v. Curby, 595 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2010) (explains variability in required sentencing explanation)
- United States v. Garthus, 652 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2011) (discusses sufficiency of sentencing record”)
- United States v. Villegas-Miranda, 579 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2009) (addresses justification for sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Kilgore, 591 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 2010) (considers need for explanation in sentencing rulings)
- United States v. Lucas, 670 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2012) (reviews abuse of discretion standard and explanation requirements)