United States v. James Brinley, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13870

Brinley operated Strategic Capital Management (1999–2009) in a Ponzi-like investment scheme.
Investors (about 25) contributed over three million dollars; Brinley promised FDIC insurance and high, safe returns.
He used investor funds to pay other investors, overhead, and personal expenses, and sometimes lied to withdrawers.
In April 2009 Brinley confessed to prosecutors, admitting a scheme and owing roughly four million dollars.
Brinley pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud; district court adopted the PSR’s Guideline calculations (Offense level 26, CH I, 63–78 months).
At sentencing, Brinley sought a downward departure under §5K2.16; court denied, then sentenced him to 108 months and restitution of about $3.422 million.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by denying a 5K2.16 downward departure	Brinley argues the court relied on clearly erroneous facts.	Brinley contends the court should have departed given voluntary disclosure and remorse.	No clear error; court properly exercised discretion not to downwardly depart.
Whether the court violated Local Rule 32.1(e) notice for a variance	Brinley claims lack of notice prevented meaningful argument for upward variance.	Brinley did not object with specificity; notice was effectively provided at hearing.	Plain-error review rejects relief; no prejudice shown; notice fulfilled in context.
Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable given the variance	Brinley contends the variance and weight on certain factors were improper.	The district court properly weighed §3553(a) factors and reasons for variance; within discretion.	Sentence upheld as substantively reasonable; district court properly balanced factors.

Gall v. United States, 552 F.3d 38 (U.S. 2007) (within-guidelines presumption; not per se reasonable outside range)
Irizarry, 553 U.S. 708 (U.S. 2008) (local-rule notice extends to variances; plain-error framework)
Erpenbeck, 532 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2008) (departure decisions are discretionary; standard of review)
Puckett, 422 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 2005) (review of discretionary decisions by district court)
Massey, 663 F.3d 852 (6th Cir. 2011) (plain-error review; prejudice requirement)
Gabbard, 586 F.3d 1046 (6th Cir. 2009) (plain-error prejudice and affect on proceedings)
Keller, 665 F.3d 711 (6th Cir. 2011) (prejudice must be shown under plain-error standard)
Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error framework and prejudice analysis)
Grossman, 513 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2008) (variance justification and §3553(a) balancing)
Paull, 551 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2009) (reasonable consideration of §3553(a) factors in variance)
Vowell, 516 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (standard for substantive unreasonableness review)