United States v. Juncal
723 F.3d 366
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Four defendants (Juncal, Campbell, Sampson, Corsey) conspired to defraud a broker, Thomas Re, into arranging a $3 billion loan secured by purported U.S. Treasury notes collateral for a fictitious Siberian pipeline; Re was an FBI informant who recorded the defendants.
- Defendants supplied fabricated documents (bond certificates, CUSIP numbers), claimed exotic sovereign backers (e.g., a “Yamasee” connection), and staged meetings; FBI arrested them at the planned closing.
- At trial the government relied almost entirely on Re’s testimony; all four defendants were convicted of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1349.
- Sentencing calculations used intended loss of $3 billion, driving Guidelines offense levels above the Sentencing Table so that U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a) reduced each defendant’s guideline sentence to the statutory maximum of 240 months; the district court imposed 20-year terms for each defendant.
- Defendants appealed (convictions and sentences). The Second Circuit affirmed convictions but vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing due to procedural sentencing error and an inadequate § 3553(a) explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materiality of misrepresentations (sufficiency of evidence) | Govt: False statements were capable of influencing Re and others; material because they induced investigation and steps toward closing. | Defendants: Lies were so objectively unbelievable that no reasonable financial professional would be influenced, so misrepresentations were not material. | Conviction affirmed — a reasonable jury could find materiality because the initial offers induced Re to investigate and pursue the deal. |
| Whether district court properly calculated Guidelines range | Govt: Guidelines were correctly calculated using intended loss; § 5G1.1(a) reduced range to statutory max. | Defendants: Guidelines overstate seriousness; some enhancements erroneous. | Court held any minor miscalculations were harmless because intended-loss pushed range beyond statutory max; no reversible error in the calculation step. |
| Procedural reasonableness of 240-month sentences | Govt: 20-year statutory maximum appropriate given high intended loss and deterrence goals. | Defendants: District court failed to adequately consider § 3553(a) factors, to address arguments that intended loss overstated seriousness, and to make individualized findings. | Sentences vacated and remanded — record ambiguous whether court treated statutory max as automatic; insufficient § 3553(a) explanation and individualized sentencing. |
| Whether court should review substantive reasonableness of sentences (concurrence) | N/A (concurring judge) | Concurrence: loss-guideline overweights intended loss; 20-year sentences are shockingly high and substantively unreasonable given farcical, unconsummated scheme and no actual loss. | Majority did not reach substantive-reasonableness merits but concurrence urged substantive review; court remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (conviction must be upheld if any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (materiality defined as having natural tendency or capacity to influence a decisionmaker)
- United States v. Thomas, 377 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 2004) (defendant liable for objectively absurd lies if a subjectively foolish victim is deceived)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing review framework; calculate Guidelines then consider § 3553(a))
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (judge must provide sufficient explanation of sentence for meaningful appellate review)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (district court must calculate Guidelines and create record showing considered § 3553(a) judgment)
- United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (substantive-reasonableness review may be appropriate in exceptional cases)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (district courts may vary from Guidelines when appropriate)
- United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2009) (some Guidelines calculation errors may be harmless)
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (discusses procedural then substantive review of sentences)