United States v. Leiskunas, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18474

Background

Leiskunas participated as a straw buyer in a seven-property mortgage-fraud scheme, causing approximately $4,473,161.55 in funds transfers and receiving $90,000 from co-schemers.
He pled guilty to wire fraud and admitted his role in closings, falsified documents, and not intending to assume mortgage liability for the properties.
The PSR calculated a loss of $1,792,000 for guideline purposes, based on reasonably foreseeable loss from the scheme.
The district court sentenced him to 37 months, two years of supervised release, and restitution of $1,792,000, adopting the PSR’s loss figure.
Leiskunas argued for substantial assistance credit and a minor role adjustment, and contested the loss amount and its foreseeability.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit remanded for (1) explanation of loss attribution and (2) reconsideration of minor-role issues, with potential further action on cooperation.
The court also noted the need to address a $1,500 arithmetic error in restitution and to provide a reasoned basis for loss attribution on remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused discretion on cooperation	Leiskunas contends cooperation warranted downward adjustment.	Leiskunas argues the court should have given substantial assistance credit.	No abuse; court properly exercised discretion not to reduce sentence based on cooperation.
Whether the loss amount attributed to Leiskunas was properly explained	Loss of $1,792,000 reflects reasonably foreseeable loss from scheme.	Court failed to explain why $1,792,000 was attributable to him.	Remanded for explicit explanation of the loss attribution.
Whether Leiskunas was entitled to a minor role adjustment	Leiskunas acted as a necessary straw buyer, not minor.	He was a minor or peripheral participant despite being central to scheme.	Remanded; court must reconsider minor role without misinterpretations.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Coopman, 602 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentence within guidelines)
United States v. Omole, 523 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2008) (case-by-case discretion in sentencing within guidelines)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (within-guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable)
United States v. Arceo, 535 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2008) (deference to district court sentencing discretion)
United States v. Doe, 613 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2010) (within-guidelines sentence presumptions)
United States v. Vallar, 635 F.3d 271 (7th Cir. 2011) (lowest end of guideline range is rarely unreasonable)
United States v. Knox, 573 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2009) (cooperation can support sentence reduction even without §5K1.1 motion)
United States v. Richardson, 558 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2009) (courts may consider cooperation without government motion)
United States v. Schmitt, 495 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2007) (reversing where judge suggested outside constraint on discretion)
United States v. Saenz, 623 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2010) (role in drug cases; minor role analysis guidance)
United States v. Sorich, 523 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2008) (minor role consideration depends on context, not mere number of acts)
United States v. Haynes, 582 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2009) (defining minor role adjustment framework)
United States v. Olson, 450 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2006) (harmless error and remand standards in sentencing)
United States v. Johnson, 643 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2011) (need for addressing defendant arguments on remand)