United States v. McClaflin, 939 F.3d 1113

McClaflin ran a "fix and flip" real‑estate Ponzi scheme (2011–2017) that defrauded investors of over $14.5 million; she pled guilty to wire fraud and money laundering in 2017.
The plea agreement included a 2‑level enhancement for more than ten victims; the government did not initially pursue a 6‑level enhancement for substantial financial hardship to 25+ victims.
Sentencing was continued multiple times; McClaflin sought a last‑minute continuance for health reasons which the district court denied.
The district court reviewed sworn victim impact statements in the PSR, found substantial financial hardship to 25+ victims, applied the 6‑level enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C)), and determined a total offense level of 33.
The court imposed a downward variant sentence of 96 months (below the 135–168 month advisory range) and McClaflin appealed, raising three principal challenges.

Issue	McClaflin's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance	Denial abused discretion and prejudiced her due to ill health and counsel unpreparedness	Request was last minute, counsel admitted unprepared, victims/witnesses and court would be inconvenienced; little likelihood continuance would help	No abuse of discretion; denial reasonable and McClaflin showed no material prejudice
6‑level enhancement based on victim impact statements	Court procedurally erred by sua sponte imposing the enhancement relying on victim statements and over government’s position	Sworn victim statements were reliable, undisputed, and the court may make independent findings; government had objected to 6‑level but PSR supported findings	Reviewed for plain error; court properly relied on sworn, undisputed victim impact statements and made independent factual findings — no procedural error
Consideration of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors	Court failed to consider all relevant mitigating factors (including medical condition) and decided sentence before hearing argument	Court solicited targeted argument, considered offense seriousness, victims' harm, cooperation, and medical issues; BOP better suited for medical placement	Reviewed for plain error; court sufficiently considered § 3553(a) factors and did not plainly err

Rogers v. Andrus Transp. Servs., 502 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing continuance denial)
United States v. Glaub, 910 F.3d 1334 (10th Cir. 2018) (factors to evaluate continuance requests)
United States v. Orr, 692 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2012) (importance of prejudice factor in continuance analysis)
United States v. West, 828 F.2d 1468 (10th Cir. 1987) (denial of continuance that foreclosed critical exculpatory witness can be reversible error)
United States v. Robertson, 568 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2009) (need to timely and specifically object to procedural sentencing errors)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (plain‑error framework for unpreserved objections)
United States v. Holloway, 826 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2016) (challenge to court’s reliance on PSR requires preservation or plain‑error review)
United States v. Aragon, 922 F.3d 1102 (10th Cir. 2019) (sentencing judge must independently resolve disputed facts)
United States v. Caiba‑Antele, 705 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2012) (courts may rely on reliable information in sentencing beyond trial evidence)
United States v. Lopez‑Flores, 444 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2006) (district court need not recite magic words to show consideration of § 3553(a) factors)