United States v. Christian Allmendinger
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1880
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Allmendinger and Oncale founded A&O in Houston to sell bonded life settlements and misrepresented funds and structure to investors.
- A&O commingled investor funds, claimed escrow and upfront premium payments that did not exist, and diverted millions for personal use.
- Regulators questioned A&O's unregistered securities; a sale to Blue Dymond was orchestrated with Abdulwahab; insiders secretly profited while investors suffered.
- Post-sale, the conspirators continued operations through Blue Dymond; hundreds of investors eventually lost over $100 million as premiums went unpaid and policies lapsed.
- Allmendinger withdrew large sums and attempted to hide assets; he never cooperated with investigators and trial began after restraining orders and discovery.
- A superseding indictment charged multiple counts; the government redacted post-sale conduct during trial, narrowing the conspiracy but preserving the fraud’s purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive amendment of indictment | Allmendinger argues the indictment was unlawfully altered after charging. | Allmendinger contends post-sale allegations broadened or prejudiced him. | Narrowing was non-fatal variance; no constitutional rights abridged. |
| Loss calculation under § 2B1.1 | Allmendinger argues loss exceeded actual foreseeability and should be reduced. | Allmendinger contends PCI bond failure was not foreseeable and should limit loss. | District court's loss amount reasonably foreseen;PCI loss included; no error. |
| Reasonableness of sentence | Allmendinger challenges procedural and substantive reasonableness; requests downward departure. | Allmendinger claims excessive sentence relative to co‑conspirators and nationwide cases. | Sentence procedurally sound and substantively reasonable; within court’s discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Floresca, 38 F.3d 706 (4th Cir. 1994) (standard for constructive amendments and variance review)
- United States v. Roe, 606 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2010) (whether defendant was tried on charges different from indictment)
- United States v. Whitfield, 695 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2012) (indictment form and scope; reformation allowed for form/typos)
- United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985) (sufficiency of narrowing indictments; narrowing not always fatal)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (reasoned sentencing guidelines after Booker; explanation required)