United States v. Michael Krzyzaniak
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 465
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Krzyzaniak pleaded guilty to wire fraud and income tax evasion, admitting an eight-year fraud scheme totaling over $20 million.
- He sought a downward variance; the district court sentenced him to 151 months and ordered restitution of about $25.96 million.
- The loss calculation relied on PSR Paragraph 33, adopting a loss figure of at least $25,959,781.95 and a 22-level increase.
- Krzyzaniak appealed on three procedural sentencing grounds and for substantive reasonableness.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting each procedural challenge and upholding the sentence within the advisory guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss calculation validity | Krzyzaniak argues the loss figure was inaccurate and not adequately adjudicated. | Krzyzaniak contends the PSR failed to credit Palmwood collateral and that the plea agreement limits re-determination. | Waived; court upheld adherence to stipulated loss calculation in the plea agreement. |
| Adequacy of sentence justification | Krzyzaniak contends the court failed to explain why a downward variance was rejected. | Krzyzaniak asserts the sentence explanation was insufficient given age, health, and loss concerns. | Explanation was sufficient; record showed consideration of arguments and reasons for denial. |
| Rule 32(i)(1)(A) personal acknowledgment | Krzyzaniak claims the court should have verified he personally reviewed the PSR. | Krzyzaniak had reviewed the PSR with counsel; personal inquiry to defendant not required. | Not required; no prejudice shown; defendant’s review evidenced by counsel and pre-sentencing communications. |
| Substantive reasonableness of the sentence | Krzyzaniak argues the sentence is substantively unreasonable given the circumstances. | Krzyzaniak contends a more lenient sentence was warranted due to his age/health and other factors. | Presumptively reasonable; within advisory range; district court’s discretion supported by the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Barrett, 173 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 1999) (plea agreements limit challenges to guideline calculations absent invalidity or withdrawal)
- United States v. Razo-Guerra, 534 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review for sentencing where no specific objections to PSR facts)
- United States v. Collier, 585 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 2009) (waiver of procedural objections when not raised with specificity at sentencing)
- United States v. Lee, 553 F.3d 598 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review for sentencing when no timely objection to explanation)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (requirement that courts provide a detailed explanation for guiding AH, not mere formality)
- United States v. Prado, 204 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2000) (preexisting authority on procedural objections to PSR and sentencing procedures)