United States v. Negroni
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6304
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Massive fraud scheme (2000–2008) defrauded settlement funds of over $40 million across Nasdaq, Cendant, and BankAmerica class actions; Waltzer orchestrated fake entities, offices, and documents to submit false claims.
- Hall submitted a Nasdaq claim in 2002 and received about $508k, then allegedly aided Waltzer in Far East/Cendant and BankAmerica frauds.
- Negroni, childhood associate of Waltzer, submitted Nasdaq claim and helped create Denver, a fake corporation, for BankAmerica fraud; wired substantial proceeds to Waltzer.
- Paragraph 45 of Hall’s PSR, alleging Hall impersonated Far East partner and helped release funds, was struck from the PSR by the District Court.
- Hall was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment; Negroni received five years’ probation with nine months’ home detention and restitution; district court’s procedural rulings were challenged on appeal.
- Court vacated both sentences and remanded for resentencing due to procedural errors and lack of adequate explanation for deviations from Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did striking Paragraph 45 and omitting the six-level enhancement abuse discretion? | Government: Paragraph 45 supported 250+ victims; striking it was error. | Hall: Evidence not overwhelming; court correctly struck paragraph. | Vacated Hall’s sentence and remanded for resentencing for inadequate explanation. |
| Was Negroni’s sentence (probation with home detention) properly explained under 3553(a)? | Government: Court’s variance warranted by severity and Hall’s culpability. | Negroni: Court gave meaningful consideration; variance justified by personal factors. | Vacated Negroni’s sentence and remanded for resentencing due to insufficient explanation for the variance. |
| Did the court properly weigh the relative culpability of Hall and Negroni? | Government: Hall more culpable; basis supported by evidence. | Court rejected some factual predicates but kept differential treatment. | Remanded; inconsistencies in factual findings and reliance on undermined assertion require resentencing with clear reasoning. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural reasonableness requires explanation for deviations from Guidelines)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (three-step sentencing process; appellate review for procedural error and abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Merced, 603 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2010) (remand for re-sentencing when procedural error is discovered)
- United States v. Levinson, 543 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2008) (meaningful consideration of § 3553(a) factors required for sentencing decisions)
- United States v. King, 604 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2010) (disparities among similarly situated defendants must be explained)
- United States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207 (3d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentencing decisions)