United States v. Carl Moose
893 F.3d 951
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Carl Moose solicited $680,945 from 16 investors to buy stock in California Energy & Power (CEP) via his vehicle, Infiniti Wind Technology; he invested $200,000 in CEP and kept $480,945.
- Moose pleaded guilty to wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343). No plea agreement; district court calculated Guidelines loss at ~$480,000 (intended loss) and actual loss at ~$406,000.
- The district court’s Guidelines range (based on U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1) was 41–51 months; the judge imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 24 months imprisonment plus 24 months supervised release and restitution of $405,945.
- Moose argued the loss should be only about $70,445 by claiming credit for returned property (CEP stock allegedly worth ~$610,500 in July 2011) and thus sought a lower Guidelines range.
- He also challenged (1) the reasonableness of the loss-based Guidelines enhancements for fraud generally, (2) the restitution order and its interest, and (3) several supervised-release conditions (drug testing, workplace visits, and interest accrual).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate loss amount under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 | Govt: loss = greater of actual or intended; court properly used $480,945 intended loss (Moose pocketed that amount). | Moose: should get credit for returned/appropriately invested property and later transfer of control; loss ~ $70,445. | Affirmed: district court did not clearly err; $480,945 loss appropriate. |
| Application and reasonableness of fraud-loss enhancements | Govt: enhancements reflect Commission judgment and legitimate sentencing goals (retribution, parity). | Moose: loss escalators lack empirical basis re deterrence; undue severity for white-collar offenders. | Rejected: enhancements not per se unreasonable; district court may vary but did not abuse discretion here. |
| Restitution amount and consideration of defendant's ability to pay | Govt: statutory duty to order full restitution to victims. | Moose: district court failed to consider his financial prospects and should waive interest during imprisonment. | Restitution affirmed: district court properly ordered full restitution; issue of interest requires explanation on remand. |
| Supervised-release conditions and explanations required | Govt: overarching rationale for sentence justifies supervised-release terms; conditions recommended by probation. | Moose: specific objections to interest accrual, mandatory drug testing, and workplace visits; judge gave no reasons beyond "overruled." | Vacated and remanded limitedly: duration affirmed, but district court must explain and reconsider the contested conditions. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. White, 883 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for Guidelines interpretation and loss factual findings)
- United States v. Lauer, 148 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 1998) (intended-loss measure equals amount defendant placed at risk by misappropriation)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentencing; district court may vary)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (courts may disagree with Guidelines policy judgments)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (district courts may not presume Guidelines reasonable)
- United States v. Algahaim, 842 F.3d 796 (2d Cir. 2016) (discussing potential mismatch of low base offense level plus large loss enhancements)
- United States v. Adelson, 441 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (criticizing harsh effects of loss calculations in securities-fraud contexts)
- United States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2016) (one overarching explanation may suffice for prison and supervised release length)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (courts must explain contested supervised-release conditions; counselable objections require response)