United States v. Matthew Simpson
796 F.3d 548
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Matthew Simpson and co-defendants ran a scheme (2003 onward) using shell companies and spoofing to steal and resell telecommunications services, falsify documents, and hide liabilities.
- Simpson was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349), aiding and abetting transmission of spam (18 U.S.C. § 1037), obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1)), and (earlier reversed) false domain registration; original sentence totaled 480 months.
- This Court previously affirmed most convictions, reversed the false-registration count, vacated Simpson’s sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
- On remand the district court reimposed 480 months: consecutive 240-month terms for conspiracy and obstruction and concurrent 36 months for the spam conviction.
- Simpson appealed, arguing (inter alia) statutory maximums were 12 years for Class C felonies under 18 U.S.C. § 3581, Guideline enhancements were improper (including “in the business” receiving/selling stolen property, use of a § 1037 conviction in enhancements, bankruptcy-related enhancement, victim-count enhancement), and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Simpson) | Defendant's Argument (Gov’t) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory maximum for Class C felony convictions | § 3581 limits Class C felonies to 12 years, so 240-month terms exceeded max | Statute-of-conviction maximum governs; § 3559(b) and § 3551 preserve offense-specific maximums | The court held the statute-specific 20-year maximum controls; § 3581 does not override offense statutes. |
| § 2B1.1(b)(4) "in the business of receiving and selling stolen property" enhancement | Applies only to tangible goods or to those whose primary business was fencing; not applicable to telecom minutes/services | Simpson bought/resold stolen telecom services; enhancement text has no tangible-only limit | Court held enhancement properly applied; district court’s factual finding not clearly erroneous. |
| Use of § 1037 conviction in a Guidelines enhancement (double jeopardy) | Increasing sentence based on a conviction already served violates Double Jeopardy | Prior conviction can be used to enhance; credit for time served applies but use in guideline calculation is permitted | Court held no double jeopardy violation; enhancement permitted and supported by record (dictionary attack emails). |
| Substantive reasonableness of 480-month sentence | Sentence disparate from averages; court over-weighted lack of remorse and loss amount; Sixth Amendment/Alleyne/Burrage concerns | District court considered § 3553(a) factors, balanced guidelines, imposed below-guidelines sentence; statutory maxima not exceeded | Sentence was substantively reasonable; court properly weighed factors, did not err under Alleyne/Burrage, and did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pontefract, [citation="515 F. App'x 327"] (5th Cir. 2013) (applies statute-of-conviction maximums over § 3581 where statute specifically provides a penalty)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 922 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1991) (supports using statute-specific penalties despite § 3581)
- United States v. Donley, 878 F.2d 735 (3d Cir. 1989) (similar holding on interplay of penalty statutes)
- United States v. Avery, 15 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 1993) (same)
- United States v. Wilson, 10 F.3d 734 (10th Cir. 1993) (same)
- United States v. Sutton, 77 F.3d 91 (5th Cir. 1996) ("in the business" enhancement can apply even if fenced goods are those for which defendant was convicted)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness review of sentence)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (jury must find facts that increase mandatory minimums; discussed and distinguished)
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014) (limits on when sentencing facts must be submitted to jury; discussed and distinguished)