United States v. Christopher A. Maguire
701 F. App'x 832
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Christopher Maguire convicted of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) and illegal monetary transactions (18 U.S.C. § 1957) involving >150 victims and over $4 million in losses.
- District court imposed a 120-month sentence as an upward variance from the Guidelines, citing deterrence, public protection, and seriousness of harm to victims.
- At sentencing, a victim (Petersheim) read a letter purportedly from another victim, Rosati, who later committed suicide; the letter was not authenticated.
- Maguire objected at sentencing to linking his conduct to Rosati’s suicide and to unfair prejudice, but did not argue the letter was unauthenticated hearsay violating due process.
- On appeal Maguire argued (1) due process violation from district court relying on unauthenticated hearsay (the Rosati letter) and (2) that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the due process claim for plain error and the sentence for abuse of discretion; it affirmed the 120-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maguire) | Defendant's Argument (Government / District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing on unauthenticated hearsay violated due process | Letter from Rosati was unauthenticated hearsay and unreliable; reliance violated due process | Letter was not offered to prove truth and was not relied on by the court; no due process violation | No due process violation; Maguire failed to preserve hearsay theory; no plain error shown |
| Whether district court actually relied on Rosati letter in sentencing | Court relied on letter as basis for upward variance | Court did not reference the letter when explaining the sentence and stated other bases for upward variance | Court did not rely on the letter; sentencing reasons independent of letter |
| Whether sentence was procedurally reasonable | Sentencing procedure defective due to reliance on unreliable evidence | No procedural error; court considered §3553(a) factors and gave reasons | Procedurally reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether sentence was substantively reasonable | 120 months is greater than necessary given circumstances | Lengthy sentence justified by seriousness, number of victims, and monetary loss | Substantively reasonable; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2010) (defendant has due-process right not to be sentenced on materially false or unreliable information)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (plain-error review applies when defendant fails to preserve objection)
- United States v. Straub, 508 F.3d 1003 (11th Cir. 2007) (objection must apprize court of grounds to preserve issue on appeal)
- United States v. Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d 816 (11th Cir. 2014) (party cannot raise new legal theory on appeal from a different trial objection)
- United States v. Reme, 738 F.2d 1156 (11th Cir. 1984) (sentencing error where court based sentence on unreliable hearsay about murders)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentence reasonableness reviewed for abuse of discretion; procedural and substantive components)
- United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2010) (burden on appellant to show sentence unreasonable under § 3553(a))
- United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2008) (district court has discretion to weigh § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. en banc 2010) (court may abuse discretion if it ignores relevant § 3553(a) factors or bases sentence on impermissible factors)