United States v. Landwer
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8671
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Landwer pleaded guilty to mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
- At sentencing, the district court added a two-level increase for sophisticated means under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C).
- Landwer conducted a seven-year scheme targeting elderly or financially distressed victims, using phony documents and a mix of real estate and financial deceptions.
- He posed as a lawyer, real-estate agent, or CPA, and used forged documents and fictitious correspondence to conceal fraud.
- Victims were deceived through land transfers, land trusts, quitclaim deeds, forged instruments, and misrepresented investment safety.
- The district court characterized the fraud as significantly more elaborate than usual and imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 115 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the adjustment for sophisticated means was proper | Landwer argues his scheme was simple and not sophisticated. | Landwer contends Begay-style narrowing should apply, limiting the term's scope. | Sophisticated means properly applied; scheme showed greater planning than typical fraud. |
| Whether Begay requires narrowing the interpretation of sophisticated means | Begay limits the examples to near-untraceable conduct; Landwer's should be narrower. | Begay does not require narrow interpretation; examples guide scope but are not limiting here. | Begay does not narrow the definition; examples cover broader planning/ concealment than usual fraud. |
| Whether district court double-counted by also increasing for loss and victims | No double-counting; enhancements address overlapping harms. | The adjustments operate on different purposes and are not duplicative. | No improper double-counting; adjustments serve distinct punitive goals. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Knox, 624 F.3d 865 (7th Cir.2010) (sophisticated means requires more planning or concealment than typical fraud)
- United States v. Robinson, 538 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.2008) (upholding adjustment for concealment of fraud)
- United States v. Wright, 496 F.3d 371 (5th Cir.2007) (upholding adjustment for inflated assets to defraud lenders)
- United States v. Halloran, 415 F.3d 940 (8th Cir.2005) (upholding adjustment for forged documents and notary stamps)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (statutory list of examples informs scope of related term)
- United States v. Taylor, 620 F.3d 812 (7th Cir.2010) (list-guided interpretation of statutory language)
- United States v. Black, No. 636 F.3d 893 (7th Cir.2011) (interpretation of listed examples by past decisions)
- United States v. Diekemper, 604 F.3d 345 (7th Cir.2010) (distinction between deterrence and harm-based adjustments)