United States v. Francis Schmitz, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10926

Background

Schmitz pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud affecting a financial institution and was sentenced to 84 months, below the top of the advised range.
The district court rejected Schmitz’s challenges: (i) a factor creep argument about the fraud guideline; (ii) an argument that the fraud’s time-span was misunderstood.
Schmitz allegedly defrauded seven banks and two lenders of over $6 million using a phony trust and a fictitious firm, with about $3.1 million for personal use.
Adjusted offense level was 28 with two criminal history points added because he committed the offense while on supervised release from a prior conviction; guideline range became 87–108 months.
Schmitz sought a substantially below-guidelines sentence (36 months), arguing factor creep and his age/health reduced his deterrence needs.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding no procedural or factual error in sentencing and rejecting both the factor creep and health/age challenges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there procedural error re factor creep?	Schmitz argues guidelines’ factor creep invalidates current range.	Schmitz asserts the district court should reject the fraud guideline based on institutional data concerns.	No procedural error; district court adequately considered the argument within discretionary sentencing.
Did the court misstate the duration of the charged fraud?	Schmitz asserts the court erred by implying a longer starting point for fraud.	Court’s remark was a misstatement only of wording, not duration; evidence supports a longer scheme beginning before the charged period.	No reversible error; duration was reasonably inferred, and no mistake affected sentencing factors.
Was the sentence reasonable under 3553(a) given factor creep and health/age?	Age and health reduce life expectancy; within-guidelines sentence is too severe to deter future crime.	Judge adequately weighed 3553(a) factors, health conditions are treatable in prison, and the sentence reflects substantial seriousness.	Sentence affirmed; district court properly weighed 3553(a) factors and did not abuse discretion.

Key Cases Cited

Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2005) (guidelines are advisory; judges may impose non-guideline sentences)
Dean, 414 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2005) ( abuses of guidelines authority; 3553(a) factors control)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court, 2007) (why courts may vary from guidelines based on policy considerations)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court, 2007) (requires reasoned explanation for sentences outside standard ranges)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007) (establishes reasonableness review for sentences within Guideline ranges)
Vallone, 698 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2012) (explains district court discretion and need for meaningful consideration of 3553(a) factors)
Patrick, 707 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2013) (requires discussion of significant mitigation arguments to show meaningful consideration)
Vidal, 705 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2013) (addressing when district court must explicitly address arguments)
Moreno-Padilla, 602 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2010) (course of reasoning on if guideline challenges require remand)
Garthus, 652 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2011) (whether a court must address challenges to the guidelines)
Corner, 598 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc discussion on guideline policy and judge's discretion)
Aguilar-Huerta, 576 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2009) (Booker-era considerations for penalties and discretion)
Ramirez, 675 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2011) (when a district court need not delve into guideline history)
Pape, 601 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2010) (illustrates addressing guideline-related arguments)