United States v. Kluger
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13880
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Kluger was convicted of a 17-year insider-trading conspiracy involving Bauer and Robinson and challenged only his sentence on appeal.
- The district court sentenced Kluger to 60 months on count I and 144 months on counts II–IV, to be served concurrently, totaling 144 months, with a $400 special assessment and supervised release.
- Robinson pled guilty earlier; Bauer was sentenced to 108 months; Robinson’s sentence was partly based on a government motion for downward departure.
- Kluger argued the guidelines range was miscalculated and that the court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing, resolving objections to the PSR, or allowing discovery of certain materials.
- The government asserted the gain could be attributed to Kluger under the insider-trading guideline, and the district court attributed Bauer’s gains to Kluger, rejecting a foreseeability-based reduction.
- The appellate court reviewed the district court’s guideline calculation de novo and its application to the facts for abuse of discretion, upholding a within-guidelines sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether gains from insider trading were properly attributed to Kluger under §2B1.4 | Kluger contends §1B1.3’s foreseeability applies and limits his share of Bauer’s gains. | Kluger argues §2B1.4 background allows full attribution without foreseeability. | Gains attributed to Kluger under §2B1.4; no §1B1.3 foreseeability test applied. |
| Whether Kluger was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on foreseeability/role | Kluger sought an evidentiary hearing to address the scope of the conspiracy and foreseeability. | No right to an evidentiary hearing at sentencing; extensive hearing occurred. | No mandatory evidentiary hearing required; disciplinary and record sufficient. |
| Whether Kluger's objections to the PSR and discovery requests were properly resolved | Kluger claimed the PSR mischaracterized his role and sought discovery of materials. | Rule 32 governs presentence information; discovery not required beyond Rule 32 mandates. | District court properly resolved objections; discovery not required. |
| Whether the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable | Kluger asserts disparity with Bauer and others renders the sentence unreasonable. | Court adequately considered §3553(a) factors and justified the mid-range sentence. | Sentence affirmed within guidelines; procedurally sound and substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wong, 3 F.3d 667 (3d Cir. 1993) (guidelines interpretation; commentary authority)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court 1993) (treats commentary as authoritative unless unconstitutional)
- United States v. Cespedes, 663 F.3d 685 (3d Cir. 2011) (exception to foreseeability under §1B1.3 via §2B1.4 commentary)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc; guidance on procedural vs. substantive review)
- United States v. Merced, 603 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2010) (deference to district court in §3553(a) analysis)
- United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2007) (meaningful consideration of §3553(a) factors required)
- United States v. Aquino, 555 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard of review for guideline interpretation and application)
- United States v. Collado, 975 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1992) (need for individualized sentencing findings in conspiracies)