United States v. Daniel Siddons
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20134
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Daniel Siddons pled guilty to 34 counts of mail, wire, and bank fraud and was later denied a motion to withdraw his plea.
- District Court sentenced Siddons with upward variances and specific enhancements, including a four-level investment adviser enhancement and a two-level obstruction enhancement, plus restitution.
- Siddons was a financial adviser who engaged in selling away real estate investments from 2002 onward, affecting primarily elderly clients.
- Siddons moved to withdraw the plea before sentencing; the court found no fair and just reason and denied the motion after hearings.
- The government argued the crime involved securities-law violations; the court applied the enhancement based on continuing conduct and grouping principles.
- On appeal, Siddons challenged the withdrawal denial, the investment adviser enhancement, the obstruction enhancement, and the upward variance, which the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea withdrawal denial was proper | Siddons claimed lack of valid representation and innocence support. | Siddons argued a fair and just reason existed to withdraw plea due to counsel's conduct. | Denial affirmed; no fair and just reason shown. |
| Applicability of the four-level investment adviser enhancement | Siddons contends he was not an investment adviser at the relevant time and the enhancement was ex post facto. | The conduct constitutes a continuing scheme; the enhancement applies to the entire relevant conduct. | Applied; enhancement valid under grouping and continuing-conduct logic; no ex post facto violation. |
| Ex post facto and guidelines-imposed grouping for continuing offenses | Using the later Guidelines manual violated ex post facto for pre-enactment conduct. | Grouping under § 3D1.2 and one-book rule provided notice that later guidelines could apply. | No ex post facto violation; grouping and notice justified applying later manual. |
| Obstruction of justice enhancement | Siddons disputes credibility findings supporting obstruction enhancement. | Court correctly found misrepresentations under oath and witness-influence attempts. | Enhancement sustained; credibility determinations affirmed. |
| Reasonableness of upward variance to 180 months | Sentence beyond guideline range based on attorney-relationship grievances was unwarranted. | Court properly favored deterrence and protection due to egregious crimes against elderly investors. | Upward variance upheld; sentence deemed reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. King, 604 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2010) (fair and just reason standard for plea withdrawal)
- United States v. Jones, 336 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2003) (insufficient reason to withdraw plea not adequate)
- United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir. 2010) (one-book rule; straddling guidelines applicability)
- United States v. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384 (3d Cir. 1994) (grouping continuing conduct with ex post facto considerations)
- United States v. Vivit, 214 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2000) (grouping rules provide notice that later guidelines may apply)
- United States v. Cooper, 35 F.3d 1248 (8th Cir. 1994) (noted for grouping and ex post facto discussion)
- United States v. Kumar, 617 F.3d 612 (2d Cir. 2010) (ex post facto and grouping considerations in fraud sentencing)