United States v. Lewis Gornitz
664 F. App'x 805
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Lewis Sanford Gornitz pled guilty to two counts of theft of government money under 18 U.S.C. § 641.
- The Sentencing Guidelines range was 12–18 months; the district court imposed a 38‑month sentence (20‑month upward variance).
- District court considered the PSR, a character letter, parties’ arguments, defendant’s allocution, prior unscored theft convictions, failure to pay restitution, prior career as a lawyer, gambling addiction, and poor health.
- District court explained it imposed an upward variance to promote deterrence, ensure restitution, protect the public, and account for recidivism.
- Gornitz appealed, arguing the variance was procedurally and substantively unreasonable: the court failed to adequately explain the variance and misweighed § 3553(a) factors (restitution, old unscored convictions, addiction/health).
- Eleventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion (Gornitz objected below) and affirmed the 38‑month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness: adequacy of explanation for upward variance | Court failed to adequately explain an "extraordinary" 20‑month upward variance | Court explicitly stated it considered PSR, letters, arguments, Guidelines range, and § 3553(a) factors and gave detailed reasons | Court affirmed: explanation was adequate; record shows consideration of § 3553(a) factors and a reasoned basis for the variance |
| Substantive reasonableness: whether variance degree was justified | Variance was excessive; court overemphasized failure to pay restitution and old unscored convictions, undervalued gambling addiction and health | Weight given to factors (especially criminal history/recidivism and need for deterrence/restitution) was within court's discretion; sentence below statutory max | Court affirmed: variance was substantively reasonable; justification sufficiently compelling and reviewable |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (establishes procedural/substantive reasonableness framework for sentencing and that major variances require stronger justification)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir.) (discusses major variances and appellate review deference)
- United States v. Rosales‑Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir.) (deference to district court on weight of § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir.) (district court need not recite each § 3553(a) factor so long as record shows consideration)
- United States v. Early, 686 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir.) (degree of variance must be supported by sufficiently compelling justification)